This is a debate I put together between several wordpress/blogger sites on the subject of Gay Marriage in the United States. I did not look for straw men on either side of this issue; both sides are equally represented. If you’re staying current on this issue, you’re aware of the rhetoric on each side, so I think this is an excellent chance for people of both ideals to interact peacefully. Each blogger has written (or allowed me to copy) two to three paragraphs on the topic, explaining their side of the argument. Conservative bloggers willing to participate in this discussion were difficult to find; I managed to get three on board, but two of those have not emailed me back, and do not have any prior posts to consult. For now, I’ve replaced their arguments with those from the NOM and FOTF.
Commentors: Review the commenting rules on the tab above if you have not commented here before. (I have had to delete several this week).
Bloggers: If you didn’t submit new material for me to post, I simply browsed your posts on the topic, and selected what I thought was the most succinct and introspective piece. If you are uncomfortable with the excerpt I posted, or you feel I have misrepresented your argument, email me and I will replace or remove your material immediately. Keep in mind my comments are open, and feel free to respond to counter-arguments.
That said, we’ll delve right into the arguments. The ‘For’ side will go first, since they are arguing for the affirmative.
For:
Deanna-{Deanna’s Ramblings} (Cited from this article)
The government has withheld a right and mandated that they cannot marry the person they love. An anecdote: I once worked for a company that offered domestic partner benefits to its employees — its gay employees — because the heterosexual employees have the opportunity to marry. If they chose not to marry, they could not cover their unmarried partners. That’s fair, in my opinion. Gay people want the choice and government should not deny them that. That’s what the fight is over — equal protection under the law.
At its core, the fight over same-sex marriage is a fight over gay people’s acceptance as equals in society. It’s about not having a minority group’s rights decided by a discriminatory majority. It’s about having a choice to marry — or not. We want the choice.
To have our rights voted on and found to be, somehow less than, is abhorrent. To be found second-class citizens in the voting public’s eye is anathema to us…Gay marriage is not the wrong issue. We want acceptance in society. We want equal protection. That makes it the right issue.
________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Steevens- {TPD}
Let me begin with this statement; sexuality is not the enemy. Sexuality is a shared reality of the human experience, and it unites humanity in a manner that is unparalleled within existence. Every human has desires for sex; either practiced or visualized, inwardly or outwardly, it is a uniform drive that reaches throughout mankind. We should not be shocked or scared when other people practice sexuality differently than us, because everyone has a unique sexuality. No two people enjoy or practice sex the exact same way; so in this manner, we all have different sexual preferences.
The Conservatives in this country would like to add amendments to the constitution to restrict the rights of the GLBT community in this country. There is no other way to perceive this opinion; they want less rights for gays. This ideal creates second-class citizens, and it subjugates people who deserve the right to marriage that everyone else has. This ideal is not for the protection of ‘the sanctity’ of marriage, if this virtue was actually true, these same people would push for legislation barring rapists, sex offenders and criminals from marriage. Don’t be fooled; this fight is not about marriage itself, it’s a knee-jerk response to a misunderstood constituency.
The arguments against simply do not suffice. Marriage has never, and does not require a potential of procreation; such a standard is never applied to straight couples, and should not be applied to same-sex marriages. Anti-SSM advocates claim that the government should not ‘define’ marriage for everyone else; but in the next breath, they want this very thing, by government legislation restricting marriage to selected sexual preferences. It’s asinine to suggest that two members of the same sex could not raise a child together, I have known many biological men that were the furthest thing from real fathers. To say that physiological standards are a pre-requisite to acceptable parenthood is ridiculous; parenting requires love, intelligence and virtue, and this can be achieved through any mixture of genders.
Iowa and Maine, (among other states) are moving in the right direction at this current time. Please, help in this fight for marriage equality and the advance of civil liberties in your state.
________________________________________________________________________________
David – {LoudMouthGays}
First, the government has more interest in marriage than just the raising of children. Marriage provides for more stable economic conditions for partners, meaning less reliance on public assistance programs. Marriage also, through spousal coverage attained from employers, eases the burden on our private healthcare system and reduces the number of uninsured people, reducing uncompensated care costs to healthcare providers. There are numerous other beneficial outcomes which the government promotes through marriage; to reduce the function of marriage to solely the raising of children is to deny the wider significance and function marital status has attained in our society.
Secondly, if the government’s goal in sanctioning marriage is to support the raising of children, then why are marriages sanctioned in which children are not and will not be present? Additionally, gay families raise children too. Why should the government not support the raising of these children, but support the raising of children of heterosexual marriages? The government should act in the best interests of all children, not just those of heterosexual couples.
And finally, same-sex marriage will ease the path to adoption for homosexual couples, enlarging the pool of supportive and loving parents for children who need good homes. As many studies have shown the benefits of children living in two-parent homes, surely the government has an interest in placing as many of these children into them as possible. Gay marriage would allow for the furthering of this sound public policy.
________________________________________________________________________________
Against:
Roger Cotton – {A Patriotic American Speaks} (Note: in this piece, he seems to be somewhat in the middle of this issue, but most of his rhetoric seems to slant against SSM. Mr. Cotton, you’re welcome to refute, counter-argue, or ask me to replace or remove this piece.)
Better to me, it seems, homosexuals accept equal legal status as lifelong partners under civil unions than to demand and legally force religious heterosexuals to change their beliefs and values so that the institution of marriage be rendered meaningless…
As yet, I have not committed myself to a definitive opinion because my intellect and spirituality are not sufficiently developed at this time for me to be able to do so. I do pray I have the courage and wisdom to come to the correct conclusion. Doing so, though, would require me to subsume one set of beliefs to the other. And, that may not be such a terrible thing. I think I owe it to Mr. Reed to give this my utmost consideration before making any further proclamations on the subject.
What I would like to understand is why it is so crucial to homosexuals to redefine “marriage.” If they seek tolerance of their differing views and lifestyles, that is one thing. If they demand outright acceptance from others whose beliefs are anathema to such acceptance, then that is another thing. After all, in order for homosexuals to have “marriage,” religion has to be compromised, or even destroyed. That is unacceptable; not only because it would be wrong, but, because we have the Constitution saying it is illegal to do so.
________________________________________________________________________________
James Dobson – in ‘Marriage under Fire’ -FOTF
Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.
In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.
Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state’s compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.
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. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
National Organization for Marriage – ‘Talking Points’
I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”
This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”
Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”
• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.
• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.
• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.
________________________________________________________________________________
Let’s hear your responses in the comments. I really look forward to hearing what you all have to say.
There are times when I shake my head and wonder “Why can’t they understand that everyone should be free to marry whom they wish?” I am, of course, speaking about the opponents to GLBT rights.
I imagine that somewhere there is someone from the other side shaking his/her head and thinking the same thing.
I have to wonder, will the two sides ever see eye-to-eye? Or is this one of those issues that is simply too big to be easily solved?
For my part, I don’t understand when they say that gay rights will infringe their religious rights. The only thing I can ask is “Is their religion based on hate and they want the right to hate?” I don’t believe that, but I wonder sometimes.
In my view, legalizing gay marriage wouldn’t prevent someone from practicing their religion of choice. You’d still go to church on Sunday’s (and Wednesday’s, if where you live is anything like where I live) and you’d still worship the same way.
As to gays using your churches to get married, there is an easy way to prevent that. The gays go to the Justice of the Peace, usually a judge. (Incidentally, many straight people go to the Justice of the Peace if they are uncomfortable with a religious ceremony. It’s what I did, for example, since neither myself or my wife are welcome in the local Christian churches since we are both Pagans). That issue solved, in my view. *laughs*
I’ve rambled more than I intended, so I’ll close by saying a big thank you to Adam for having this discussion. I hope your round-table is more successful than my attempt at a discussion.
Respect all around,
Goon
That part of the conservative argument never made sense to me; gays can marry and somehow you can’t practice your religion freely? How could that possibly impinge upon your rights?
Anyway, yeah, this is a post I wanted to get going from the beginning, but VERY few conservatives were interested in a debate, cause they know there is no logic behind their rhetoric. I felt it was time to air out all of the rhetoric in the open and see it for what it was.
At the outset, let me make it clear that I am in the ‘for’ half of this debate. Reading the opposition’s response only garnered, for me, the same illegitimate ‘reasons’ as to why SSM is a problem:
REGARDING JAMES DOBSON’S ARGUMENT
a) Destruction of religion – this is probably the biggest lie, causing some of the greatest damage. Firstly, marriages are not required to be held in a church, ministered by a priest of the faith in order for them to be acknowledged by the state.
I think it’s fair to say that it does provide a problem for instances where a same sex couple wish to have a religious marriage, with those elements intact, but to generalise marriage as something belonging solely to religion is to ignore the millions of marriages 1) conducted and entered into without the presence or allusion to any religion, 2) marriages conducted and entered into through a religion different from Christianity.
In that case, this clearly shows that the opposition of SSM is a religious issue and not a moral one. This brings us to the issue of state-subsidization and what constitutes equal access. Churches are free to refuse to perform SSM, but then they must not partake in rate-payers money. Simple.
b) The argument against homosexuality as a slippery-slide to polygamy is false. Firstly, this thought-pattern depends on a foundational belief in the wrongness of homosexuality itself – a belief arising from a personal religious viewpoint. Secondly, polygamy, like homosexuality is a sexual preference, and a personal choice. Those with a religious argument against these practices will not understand this concept because of that foundational belief. I don’t wish to generalise, but in my experience with people with these beliefs, they are literally unable to see that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and personal life choices are just that: personal.
c) “Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state’s compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.”
I call strawman. This is just another ridiculous fear-based claim, with no grounds in reality. How can people who want to be married, who appreciate the sentimental meaning as well as practical benefits of marriage possibly want to END the ‘interest in marital relationships’? This is probably the most disappointing argument because it’s not an argument at all – just an example of religious fear-mongering.
Some of Dobson’s other points all depend soley on that personal religious belief, and aren’t worth arguing because they have no basis in reality.
As long as homosexuality is ‘wrong’, fairness and equality are not understood.
In response to other points:
“Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.”
AND
“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.”
Marriage is a man-made institution and ritual that has nothing to do with parenting. Where we are now, as long as there is a child present, there is guaranteed the existence of a biological mother and father. This is just a biological fact, and not an indicator of parentage. Plenty of kids are raised by people other than their own biological parents, and are just fine.
The problem is that religion has adopted marriage as a God-institution, while it is not. Marriage, in fact, is linked with archaic notions of women as objects of property – the handing over of the woman from the father to the husband, a binding agreement that had more to do with power than love. Add a couple hundred years of sentiment, and marriage has become about love, which is not harmful in itself. Add laws and benefits that make marriage economically beneficial, and we have the collision of 3 seperate issues, the least of our worries which should be the religious beliefs of the (American) majority.
Religion does not have to be destroyed or compromised, simply because marriage has nothing to do with religion. Religion does not own marriage, and at the very most – only the concept of religion-based marriage.
___
Thanks for this debate, Adam, great idea. Apologies for the long comment.
Please, don’t apologize, you addressed the FOTF arguments excellently. I’m hoping the more debates we can have on this topic, the more people will actually understand that this is a civil rights issue.
I agree. Thanks for having a discussion on this, Adam. I posted on this yesterday (linked above). I’m going to have another post on this today, too, based on an excellent NY Times op-ed.
Thanks for letting me use some of your material!
Everyone, please check on this additional reading on this post, it’s really great writing on the topic.