I posted this on a political message board that I occasionally frequent and thought I would repost it here. This was a brief post I made arguing against what I believe to be the five most frequently used arguments against gay marriage.
Before I begin, please note some of my sarcasm. As I stress, this is a personal issue for me being discussed politically. I doubt many of you would like the deepest and most personal core of your family lives becoming issues of national debate and would feel quite frustrated and offended if your own personal lives were so invaded, often denounced.
I have to chime in at least once in every gay marriage thread. In the first few, I was very vocal. However, as I feel with almost every philosophy thread, after a few pages any comment you make really just becomes another voice in a hurricane: it is impossible to hear anything except the posts right next to you. Needless to say, I can’t read this whole thread.
I’m an out gay man, and I also study queer literature and queer theory (I have an MA in literature and will be starting a PhD this fall) and have read a lot on the topic. My views are biased, but they are also personal. For most other people here, I imagine their views are mostly political or spiritual and do not have a direct impact on their day to day life.
I will list a few short bullet point counter/preemptive-arguments, since I find that I tend to be less long winded that way:
1) On the definition of marriage: conservatives did not argue when the definition of the 2nd amendment was recently reinterpreted to change the meaning of “a well-regulated militia” into a more modern context. Furthermore, the definition of marriage in the west has changed dramatically since early civilization, and even in the last 100 years. Marriages used to be arranged by parents and approved by the monarchy and marriages used to be restricted to people of the same social class, race, religion, nationality, sex, and appropriate grammatical usage of who vs. whom (I am kidding on the last one). Since we do not require a dowry anymore, and since we also allow interracial marriages (they were illegal in some states in the US until 1967!), I am certain that we do not carve the definition of marriage in stone. I say if you want an unchanged, core-western values definition of marriage, you should be required to take the traditional definition of marriage, dowrys and everything.
2) On the “preservation” of marriage: if you are worried about the preservation of marriage, “why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” If you want to use law to preserve marriage, argue first for the illegalization of divorce. The lack of support for such a measure will cut through a lot of the “sanctimony” of marriage rhetoric, I imagine. Almost all objects to gay marriage stem from a discomfort of gay issues and are usually covered up with an appeal to tautologically accepted values, usually “family” values. The “family” has always been a nice rhetorical shelter to hide intolerance since the cold war. The truth is, not many families are like Ozzie and Harriet (yes, I’m only 23 but I know some classic tv sitcoms like that). If you want to preserve families, look at the things that make them suffer. If the energy that went out against gay marriage was redirected towards poverty, you’d do a lot more good to save families and marriages. Most marriages end because of money issues, or so I’ve heard.
3) On Polygamy, Bestiality, Necrophilia, Etc.: As much as many conservatives (especially Christian FUNDAMENTALISTS) want religion and politics to blur together until we are the Christian equivalent of the Shia government (with George Bush as the Ayatollah, I presume), that has not happened yet. If anything, I am for gay marriage to prevent us from enacting Christian laws as harsh as those enacted by the Iranian government on its people and entirely dissolving the separation of church and state. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument (one that I do not actually believe). However, if anyone gets to use the slippery slope argument for “Polygamy, Bestiality, Necrophilia, Etc.”, then I reserve my right to label any oppositional views as western equivalents to islamo-fascists. Stop calling me the precursor to bestality, and I will stop calling you the precursor to Christian-Shiaism. Deal? I know how much you all hate Iran afterall.
4) On Religion: I very well might get married in a tolerant church someday. If my religion is to be restricted and not recognized by the state, then I demand that a similar restriction be placed on every other religion. I will not debate religious views of homosexuality, since no religion is not currently perceived as the source of our law and there are too many religious views for me to address them all. If any religious marriage is to be recognized by our laws, then so should mine. If you use the slippery slope argument (Polygamy, Bestiality, Necrophilia being the most common), or any of the other arguments I previously mentioned, please see the corresponding number.
5a) On Non-Procreation/Marriage for Children: Many gay couples have children. If you argue that gay people should not be married because marriage is intended to produce and raise children, then make gay adoption illegal (and I am sure some of you feel it should be). You will still be stuck with gay families that have kids from other marriages. If you take my preserve marriage argument and illegalize divorce, this will only be a problem in the case of a few widows. Those poor widows aside (law always leaves some people out, and besides, when a widow has already suffered so much, who cares if they suffer a little more by losing the recognition of their family?), society will have a substantial number of unadopted children if gay families are unallowed to adopt. Furthermore, if abortion is illegalized, this number will sky-rocket. Where will all of these kids go? The dumpster? Foster care? I know how much you conservatives hate opening your pockets for social programs.
5b) On Non-Procreation/Marriage for Children: The typical, “many people cannot produce kids, elderly marriages should be made illegal, as well as marriages between sterile people, etc.” objection. Also, we should set a financial requirement for marriage if this is the logic for our marriage, since poor people really cannot afford kids. Of course, since a larger percentage of the poor are people of color, this might also satisfy a few other discriminatory agendas.
My whole argument from points 1-5 is basically that if certain values are going to be espoused in opposition to gay marriage, those values should be taken to their logical and necessary conclusions. The problem is that most gay marriage objections really are just covers for people being deep down uncomfortable with gay people in general. None of that, “I have a gay friend or gay brother/sister, but…” story. If you truely have someone close to you who is gay or lesbian, and you really care about them, you will care about them enough to reevaluate your views so that they can live a happy, undiscriminated life. If you do not reevaluate your views, then you simply do not care about them all enough to use them as a rhetorical shield in an argument.
