With the recent activity in the Supreme Court and the sea of red Human Rights Campaign symbols in my Facebook, gay marriage is on a lot of people’s minds these days. Mine too. The fact is, I’ve given the issue a good deal of thought over the years and, frankly, the main reason why I think it’s a-ok to allow homosexual couples to get hitched is because I have yet to hear a single compelling argument against it.
Not a single one.
So, without more ado, here are a lot of the arguments I hear against it and why I don’t think they hold much water.
It goes against God…
Well, it may or may not. That point, too, is debatable and has been debated by a lot of people more knowledgeable than me. Frankly, I don’t want to get into that because I, personally don’t have a horse in that race. I’m an agnostic. You put a blaster up against a hokey religion and I’m picking the blaster nearly every time.
But here is the deal with that argument…
Even if I believed in my heart that the happiness gay couples derive from their relationships was somehow false and infinitely lesser than the happiness achieved by a “traditional” match-up (I don’t); even if I believed with all my heart and mind that GOD HIMSELF will smite those that enter into such relationships–religious beliefs don’t enter into it. The Bible is simply not the litmus test for law in this country. Just because the Bible may not like it doesn’t mean it can’t be the law of the land. If you think that then you’re confusing the US with theocracies like Iran.
So basically, even if God is against it, that is no argument not to do it. Not for me. Not for this country. You may personally be against it, and that is your right to feel that way. You don’t have to do it. But it is no reason not to make a legal right. Not in a free society.
But if we do it for them, we have to let pedophiles and goat-hunchers do it…
Whee…the slippery slope argument. Coupled with a bit of false moral equivalency. Quite the two-fer on that one.
First of all, if you’re going to buy the slippery slope argument, you have to start at the beginning of the slope–and that is making heterosexual marriage a civil matter. And by making it a civil matter (“…by the power invested in me by the State of such-and-so…”), you have to apply it as equitably as possible in a just and fair society. Which is what we, the United States, purport to be. So the slippery slope has long already started–we’ve just traditionally stopped the slope at heterosexual marriage and all these folks are asking for is to open up the slope for them as well.
But it doesn’t mean we have it open up for all the various false and abhorrent straw-men that are carted before us. A consensual adult couple of either or any gender combination is simply not the same thing as a pedophile or someone who practices beastiality or any other such nonsense. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Oh, don’t worry–I’m going to get to the immorality and the “it’s not natural” arguments in a minute. All this specious argument does is sink to comparing two things that have no business being compared simply to scare and get a rise out of folks. I don’t buy it. It holds about a much water as my head holds hair–thankfully less every day.
The fact is we can stop the slope anyplace we want. We’ve had the slope set at “hetero” for a long time now. All that’s being asked is to allow loving adult couples who happen to be the same gender to have their turn. I got no beef with that.
It’s immoral…
First of all, if your immorality argument is biblical, see my first point. If your point is not biblical, I don’t see it. Generally, if something is considered immoral, it has to be harming someone. Last time I checked, two homosexuals who love each other aren’t harming anyone. And if your argument is that they are harming themselves, I’ve got some harmful heterosexual couples to show you that do get to get married.
Which brings me to my next point and one you might not want to hear. Marriage has zero to do with morality and hasn’t for a long time. When have two straight people gotten married and been quizzed on their basic morality? When a couple proves themselves to be amoral is their marriage annulled? Doesn’t happen. That pedophile and animal rights activist we talked about earlier? He has every right to get married in this country. Thousands of immoral prisoners get married every year behind bars. Guess what? If I turn out to be a complete amoral perv? My marriage still stands unless my spouse or myself don’t want it to do so any longer.
So here’s the point: even if I think homosexuality is immoral (and I don’t), it is not an argument against marriage. Because marriage has not, and continues not, to be about morality. It’s about a level of commitment that every couple–including homosexual ones–are capable of having. Which brings me to my next point…
Homosexuals can’t have monogamous relationships…
This one really confounds me. The basis of this argument is essentially “they can’t do it so we won’t let them!”. First of all, what is the first thing we hear in the news when stories of gay marriage come on: “So-and-So and their partner have been together for 20+ years”. Don’t tell me gay couples aren’t capable of monogamy. I know from experience of gay couples that have been together a decade or more because they just cared that damn much about the other person they were with. Furthermore, with the prevalence of straight divorce in this country, this argument shouldn’t hold any water all. Both straights and gays are clearly as capable, or incapable, of monogamy as the other.
It’s Unnatural…
My bet is that you, moral creature such as yourself, have committed over fifty unnatural acts in the past 24 hours. Did you read something based on ones and zeroes over the internets? Did you fly in an airplane? Did you wear artificial skins? Did you spend the day in artificial atmospheric conditions? Then guess what–you spent the day outside of nature. And guess what again? What separates humanity from the animal kingdom? Our ability to act outside the natural world. Our ability to manipulate our environment. And guess what–homosexuality occurs all over nature anyway. So get over it already.
Marriages are supposed to produce children…
Please show me the heterosexual marriage that has been annulled because it didn’t produce children. Don’t worry, I’ll wait…
What about couples that get together without any plans to produce children? Are they allowed to marry? Yep.
What about couples that can’t produce children? Are they any less married? Nope.
My marriage hasn’t produced children. Is it any less a marriage? No. Because we are still committed to each other in the manner that a marriage prescribes. Each to each other and no other.
It Undermines Traditional Marriage…
If my little diatribe has proven nothing it’s that traditional straight marriage has enough problems on its own. Allowing more people to take on that level of commitment isn’t going to hurt but help it. Hell, homosexual folks that have been committed through all kinds of social hell may have a thing or two to teach the rest of us.
Besides, if a gay couple gets married, it affects my marriage not one iota. Not. One. Iota. If another straight couple gets married, it affects my marriage not one iota. Not. One. Iota. The strength of my marriage is based on what it has always been based on–the strength of the commitment that I have to my wife.
In conclusion…
So, in conclusion, I support gay marriage because I have yet to see a compelling argument against it. All the arguments they come up against it crumble with only the smallest effort. The fact is, allowing our gay brothers and sisters to marry harms absolutely no one and benefits them greatly. Let them have the right to have the happiness that comes with marriage. Let them have the benefits that such a commitment endows to a relationship. This is one of those few issues where there is no downside to allowing it to progress. If nothing else, as Kinky Friedman once said “I support gay marriage because I believe they have right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!”
Shedrick
