From the blog geckoblue, who, while being a bit militaristic, does make some good arguments sometimes.

Below is his blog :



Friends With Benefits
Maybe someone can explain to me, rationally, the straight case against gay marriage.

The statements I've seen thus far have been rather vacuous, characterized more by well-I-just-think-it's-wrong dismissals than serious, thoughtful misgivings. Others put forward self-contradicting arguments that are absurd on their face, unwittingly making the case for gay marriage while underscoring the writer's own ignorance.

Here's what you commonly hear once you get the detractors to cease their frantic, seething, hair-pulling, Bible-thrusting frenzy and articulate their reasons for opposition:

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

A non-argument. Simply re-stating the current definition of marriage does nothing to justify its exclusiveness.

It denigrates the institution of marriage.

I fail to see how husband and wife, upon hearing that the gay couple down the street just got hitched, will subsequently flush their rings down the toilet and call it quits. How does the prospect of someone else getting married make yours any less meaningful? And how does the idea that others can get married make it a less attractive option for men and women who love each other? Another non-argument.

Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.

No, procreation is for ensuring our continuation, and I think nature has that part set on auto-pilot. I've seen some strange arguments against gay marriage, but I don't think even the most extreme conservatives would argue that gay marriage will cause people to stop fucking.

But marriage IS for procreation.

Wow, really? They should require fertility tests, then, when straight people apply for marriage licenses. And no old people, either. They need procreation like they need to be behind the wheel of a car.

Slippery slope: People will want to marry children.

There is an entire body of national and state law that states children do not have the right to make adult decisions until, well, they become adults. Those laws have never been eroded, and they won't be invalidated by gay marriage either.

Slippery slope: People will marry their dogs!

Riiight. Allow consenting adults to marry, and suddenly there will be no defense against inter-species marriage.

This is a silly, flailing argument that nevertheless needs to be addressed so we can move on to more serious discussion. Animals, like children, cannot legally give consent to such pairings. Therefore, I think we're on solid legal grounds when we exclude bestiality. Reductio ad absurdum is the last refuge of those who cannot put forth a rational case.

Slippery slope: Incestuous family members will want to marry!

Please. First, such relationships involving children are child abuse, plain and simple. And as a rule, adult incestuous relationships are discouraged, if not outlawed, because of the danger inbreeding poses to the potential offspring of such unions. Unfortunately for anti-gay zealots, gays don't have the capability to produce deformed offspring.

Slippery slope: Groups of people will marry!

Then why hasn't group marriage occurred in any of the countries that already allow gay marriage?

Besides, there are plenty of legal reasons to limit the number of individuals who can be part of a marriage contract, one of them being the need to prevent fraud -- groups of people getting together and sucking resources from the system like it's some group discount at BJ's.

Gay marriage allows gays to recruit more members.

Ah...now we're getting down to the real reasons people oppose gay marriage: fear and loathing of homosexuals, and a belief that gays simply wish to make their "lifestyle" more attractive to lure more straight folk.

This is the argument implied by Deb, the detractor I linked to above: "To me, being gay for some is the only way that otherwise really awkward people can 'fit in' to a group. Who wouldn't 'choose' that over being isolated, especially now that our entertainment industry has glorified being gay to such a huge extent."

So, all gays started out as "awkward" people who found their true calling in having sex with other men/women. Like I said, absurd.

Next, they'll want adoption.

And then, of course, gays will recruit the children and abuse them, much like the catholic church.

This argument is an appeal against gay adoption, the merits and drawbacks of which can be debated later. It does not directly address the issue of gay marriage, since many straight couples do not have children.

Second, the argument implies that exposure to gays is inherently harmful to children. Deb, the writer I linked to above, made a particularly revealing comment to this effect -- one that goes to her own laughable ignorance:


Case in point...I have a friend who's gay. He has pictures of naked men all over his apartment. He's a great guy, very nice, very responsible and very successful. Should he be allowed to adopt a child if he gets married to his boyfriend? Would you put a child in a hetero home with pictures of naked women (or men) all over the walls?


The none-too-clever insinuation is clear: Gays, while "nice" and "responsible" on the surface, are voracious horndogs whose obsession with sexuality would undoubtedly spill over into their child-rearing. Placing kids with these people is akin to child abuse.

And while I'm at it, I'll offer one final, damning quote from Deb:


I'm fairly sure those with my view are going to lose in the end. Can't put the genie back in the bottle and all...But I'm sad about it. I do see that our society/culture is taking a nosedive in the civility and focus on the common good sense. Not sure it was ever really that strong except for a time in the mid-fifties (if you were white), but still.


Uh-huh.

Overall, opponents of gay marriage can't offer a reasonable case against gay marriage because there is none. They appear to be motivated more by the "yuk" factor than any broader, rational concern for society.

It's been said elsewhere, and I think it bears repeating: "These arguments serve mainly to obscure the issue, not illuminate it. Conservatives say they abhor gay marriage because they value marriage. The truth is they abhor gay marriage because they abhor gays."


Deb;s reply to that thro the Comments column :

Ouch! Ok, fine, ten points to you. I'm not going to argue with you because you are entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine. You may disagree and think I'm wrong, but I was being honest.

I don't think this is an easy issue. I have vascillated back and forth on it myself for ages, asking the same questions: "What do I care? What harm would it do?" etc...But I keep coming back to the same conclusion that it bothers me.

Maybe you're right that it's the "yuk" factor as you put it, but let's be clear on one thing, I don't hate homosexuals, nor do I think they "recruit." I do think that exposing young children to overt homosexual behaviors can be confusing to them, sorry but I do. Does it convert them? Doubt it, but it's something that needs explaining to them because even small kids "get" the "it takes a mommy and a daddy to make a baby" concept (they don't know about IVF unfortunately). So lots of parents don't want to be forced to explain to their kids why so-and-so has two mommies, or two daddies, or whatever. Now all of this can happen without marriage, I grant you, and so I guess I wonder why do I harp on marriage if that's the case? Sure does throw my argument--as you said--out the window. I agree.

But something still bugs me about it. I'm just stream-of-consciousness writing here (as I was to a degree in my post and comments, but since you don't know me, you woudn't know that)--but it baffles me as to why homosexuals are asking to be married? Seems to me the same reasoning must apply in their case as applies in mine as a straight person, but since I'm obviously having so much trouble articulating it, I'd like to know what their explanation is. Is that too much to ask?

My initial point was merely to take apart the arguments we hear so often in the press...the ones about money and and the ones about "luuuuuv." I wanted to do that
a) Because I don't buy it for some reason
b) Because those really aren't the reasons straight people get married (not really, rarely occurs to 90% of married people I know, myself included, even love isn't enough when society allows for people--straight or gay--to NOT get married and live together without being stigmatized)
c) Because I can't help but feel the real reason is something else...Something more agenda driven, and I'm trying to figure out what it is!

Part of why I feel this way is that the statistics just don't bear out that homosexuals want to be married! In VT and Hawaii, they aren't marrying anywhere near the same percentage of their populations as straight people. Why is that? I have no idea, I just tried to posit answers, and you took that to mean I'm "anti-gay," that's not true. You can think it if you want, but it's not true.

I only know why I got married, and a large part of it had to do with validation, belonging, societal recognition, a sense of permanence between my husband and me, lots of esoteric shit in addition to love. Then there was the kids and legitimacy thing.

While I agree with you that marriage wasn't put in place for the purpose of perpetuating the species (I don't recall saying that exactly), I do think it was put in place to ensure that the offspring would be cared for once had. You're right, biology has us on autopilot to reproduce, but not to take responsibility (legal or otherwise) for the results of our coitus. I do think this was part of it way back when, and now it's psychological.

There is still stigma tied to divorce, and to bearing children out of wedlock. All sorts of statisticians will tell you that illegitimacy and various ills such as crime, drug abuse, etc...tend to go hand in hand. No, not just because the kids are born to unwed parents, but more likely because one of the two parents isn't legally bound to stick around and help raise that kid to be a productive member of society. Even single parents who are educated and well-off face difficulties in this area.

So to me, if we're going to allow gay couples to adopt, then we should allow them to marry. I do feel that a two parent household (or an intact, predictable environment, how's that) is important for a kid's self-esteem. Just want that to be clear.

What does worry me though is that "discrimination" as a word is being used right now like a weapon by the homosexual community. Rather than seeing that it's really hard for even thoughtful straight people (whatever you think of me, I hope I can get credit for TRYING to understand my own viewpoint) to wrap their brains around the concept of gay marriage (whether it's the "ick" factor or religion or whatever holding them back), and to be TOLERANT of that point of view long enough to work together to overcome it, they seem to go on the attack. Calling me names ("ignorant" "homophobe" etc...) only makes me more resistant, and validates my perception of an "us and them" culture!

If what homosexuals truly want is to be treated equally, then it seems they should stop going on the attack. Because when I hear "discrimination!!!" I start to think that this is the word that will be used to intimidate adoption case workers and others into making some pretty scary exceptions. But make no mistake, I have the same fear of ANY group that bandies about the term "discrimination" every time they don't instantly get what they want. I used to work in HR for a company, it was nearly impossible to fire someone who was gay for this reason (or black or hispanic or a woman, you name it). We settled more lawsuits than you can shake a stick at, ALL of which were totally unfounded. This experience colors my view.

I'm not saying straight people are perfect, just saying that because marriage for us is the status quo, the system tends not to take much shit from us when we abuse the institution or misuse it. If you want to interpret this as a privilege, that's your call. I don't.

I hope you better understand my views now. I also hope you can find a way to explore this complex, emotional issue without calling people names and casting aspersions on their intelligence in the process. It may win you the argument in a technical sense, but it doesn't do what I think you'd want it to do which is change the minds of people who are more inclined to share my views. Since I would hope that's what you want in the end, you might want to consider a more "tolerant" approach.

:-)

Posted by Deb at August 5, 2003 10:39 AM

Very interesting. My comments? I would love to, but barely had time to read it!
Keeping this for future records, and hopefully some analysis in the future