Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage

[Quiddity]

Only because rights are deserved.

Then maybe that should be the focus of discussion. What are rights? And where is the line drawn...

~Victor

 

[Jaymes]

Rights... things that heterosexuals are given simply because they are heterosexual. The right to marry who they love and recieve the benefits that entails.

People speak of homosexuals wanting "special rights"... perhaps it is the heterosexuals that already have them?

 

[LongGe123]

Something I don't understand is this idea that making Gay marriage legal would somehow mean that straight marriage would become extinct. What is this the logic behind this, I really don't get it. History shows that putting people on an equal level of rights is anything but harmful to society. What do you think a man of the 18th Century would have said if you posed the idea of a woman being in charge of a business, or women going to University or becoming clergymen? They would have said, if we let women do these things, they'll all want to do it and we'll have no more men running anything. It's ridiculous!

Sexuality is a natural thing, if you legalise gay marriage, two best friends aren't just going to say to eachother - 'hey steve, let's get married' - 'ok bill, good idea'. It's not going to change people's sexuality, what a ridiculous idea. Why don't we stop talking nonsense and treat gay people as equals, because after all...THEY ARE! If you really think about it, and I mean REALLY think about it, what's the damned problem? So we have two people who love each other and want to affirm their bonds with a ceremony where they will pledge their love for eachother for the rest of their lives. These two people just happen to be two men, or two women, whatever. So? Is there really a difference, particularly with marriage - a device of human creation, or at least what we know as marriage. I'm aware that some animals pair for life - but they don't have a big ceremony and get drunk afterwards before going to the Bahamas for 2 weeks.

I say gay marriage should be legal. There is no just reason why it shouldn't be. You'll never convince me otherwise. All people should be able to get married - regardless of sexuality.

 

[Bea Ond]

Interesting Victor. Perhaps someone here who advocates gay marriage would be willing to answer (debate) each of the points listed on the site.

Apparently no one has actually done this. I think that is because most proponents of same sex marriage are wise enough not to get involved to deeply with this kind of nonsense, and if I were wise I would not either. But if I were wise I just wouldn’t be me. And apparently I have way too much time on my hands, so here we go.

You may have to follow along with the actual article if you wish to know what I am talking about.


Claim 1 : Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people. Gay people can love each other just as straight people can. Ergo, marriage should be open to gay people.


In refuting the first claim they immediately contradict themselves. The first claim consists of three statements. They tell us that the first of these statements - “Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people” is false. But then they say, “Fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is only one of its functions”. So by their logic the first statement is not false, just incomplete. And since they agree that the second claim is true, and the third follows logically from the second, by their own reasoning the first claim made in advocating Gay marriage is correct. We only need to note that fostering love is not the only function of marriage, and that is fair enough. I am sure that we will discuss the others as we go on and see how they do or do not apply to same sex couples.


Claim 2 :Not all straight couples have children, but no one argues that their marriages are unacceptable

In the second claim they talk about childless couples, comparing childless heterosexual couples to childless homosexual couples. They tell us that marriage can function in additional ways (aside from child rearing). They tell us that marriage is also about love and companionship. It would seem from their discussion of the first claim that they acknowledge that love and companionship is just as important in a homosexual relationship as it is in a heterosexual relationship, and they give no indication as to why love and companionship would justify one kind of marriage, but not the other.

They do claim that marriage is intended primarily to provide for the needs of children, which brings us to –

Claim 3 : Some gay couples do have children and therefore need marriage to provide the appropriate context.

They start off by telling us that same sex marriage would be marriage in name only. It should be obvious that this is complete nonsense. If we were talking about marriage in name only there would be no debate. People are free to call themselves whatever they wish. We are talking about legal rights and equality.

They go on to make a couple helpful admissions. First they tell us that same sex couples are just as capable of loving their children as straight couples are, and second that there is no reason to believe that gay parents would raise gay children.

They then go on from this to claim that it is important for children to have both male and female role models. In this way they seem to be arguing that same sex couples should not have children. But this is a pointless argument. Same sex couples do have children. There are millions of children being raised by same sex couples today. Gay people have always had children, and always will have children. Many people do not like this, but it is a fact. And to claim that the welfare of their children is an after thought to same sex couples is not only offensive nonsense, but also contradicts the statements they already made about how gay parents love their children.

They then go on to opine that the reason that children of same sex parents are subjected to prejudice is not because their parents are not married, but because they are gay. And we should eliminate prejudice against gay people. This seems a very enlightened attitude coming from people who are arguing that we should give legal rights to one group and not to another solely on the basis of sexual orientation. They seem to believe that you can discriminate in favour of some people without discriminating against other people. And that is clearly nonsense.

Claim 4 : Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change?

They talk about how the institution of marriage is disintegrating. This by the way is debateable. The divorce rate in North American has actually been declining since the 1980’s, but it is also beside the point. There give us no reason to believe that support for same sex marriage would further harm the institution of marriage. It is possible that more people wanting to and being allowed to marry would actually help the institution.

Claim 5: Marriage and the family have already changed, so why not acknowledge the reality?

They call this claim cynical. They don’t deny that the nature of family has changed, but ignore the fact that the laws need to change to reflect that change. They ask if “it would make any moral sense”, but they don’t answer. So let me. Yes it does make moral sense to treat all people equally under the law regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Again they take the opportunity to imply that gay people do not care about the rights of children. The fact is just the opposite. This debate is not only about protecting the rights of individuals (adults) but also about protecting the rights of the children of gay parents.

Claim 6 : Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones.

They tell us that this is a false comparison, and that is fair enough. I would accuse them of using a straw man on this one, but I have to admit it is quite possible that many proponents of same sex marriage have been guilty of making just this unfair comparison.

They say that it is best for children to have one parent of each sex, but there is no evidence that children suffer in any way from being raised by same sex parents. And as I have already said the reality is that there are millions of children being raised by same sex couples. Are they suggesting that these children do not need the same protections that we provide to heterosexual couples? And they claim that proponents of same sex marriage do not care about children.

Claim 7 : Given global overpopulation, why would anyone worry about some alleged need to have more children in any case?

I cannot figure out what their point is on this one. If they are worried about the under population of countries like Canada, then wouldn’t the solution be to allow more people to get married and have children? And if some of those people getting married and having children are gay people raising children within a same sex marriage that is great. I hope they are not suggesting that gay people should enter into loveless heterosexual marriages just for the purpose of having children. And I hope that they are not saying that children of same sex marriages do not need protection. And if they are saying that gay people should not have children, then that does not in anyway help their under population problem.

Claim 8 : Marriage should change, whether it already has or not, because patriarchal institutions are evil.

The point is that the government should not impose these patriarchal institutions or define them for the individual. I am sure there have been some people who have claimed that the heterosexual basis of marriage must be destroyed, and that is complete nonsense. I will not defend that. But it is not the driving force behind same sex marriage, nor would same sex marriage harm heterosexual marriage in anyway. The result would be what I would call marriage. But as long as it applies equally to everyone and provides the same rights and protections you can call it a cantaloupe for all I care.

Claim 9 : Gay marriage has had historical and anthropological precedents.

There have always been gay people, and there will always be gay people. They have been treated differently throughout history by different cultures. And I have to agree with them on one point. “Just because something has been done in some other society at some other time, after all, doesn't mean that it should be done in our society at this time.” And just because same sex marriage has not been recognized in the past is no reason not to recognize it today.

 

[Bea Ond]

Claim 10 : Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage.

They have a long response to this, but none of it seems relevant, or are in fact good arguments in favour of this claim. The prohibition against interracial marriage and the prohibition of same sex marriage are not exactly the same, but they are not completely different either. And there are valid analogies that can be made.

I do not claim that all those who are opposing same sex marriage are bigots, some are, but some are simply wrong.

Marriage between people of different races was banned because of racism, and marriage between same sex couples is banned because of sexism and ignorance.

None of their references to endogamy or exogamy are relevant to the discussion. And neither is their reference to polygamy. What we are talking about here is the union of two people.

If you agree that racism I wrong then you must conclude that the state cannot prevent people from getting married based on their race. If you agree that sexism is wrong then you must conclude that the state cannot prevent people from getting married on the bases of their gender.

Claim 11 : The case for gay marriage is more "poignant" than the case against it.

They don’t even dispute this claim so I don’t know if I need to support it. The sarcastic reference to the “age of Oprah Winfrey” is hardly an argument. Emotion has a part to play in all of our decisions whether we wish to admit it or not. Some people have a strong emotional reaction against same sex marriage, and some people have an emotional reaction in favour of it.

Claim 12 : Gay marriage is necessary for the self-esteem of a minority.

This exposes their hypocrisy very nicely. Their entire argument is that the exclusive nature of heterosexual marriage should be protected because it is necessary for the self-esteem of the majority. But the reality is that same sex marriage need not harm the self-esteem of heterosexual couples, and most gay people have no problem with their self-esteem. That is not what this is about. The analogy they give makes the point better than they realize.

They talk about Jews being a minority in Canada, and yet maintain their self-esteem, despite any prejudice or persecution. But when we seen evidence of Anti-Semitic activity the Jewish community speaks out quite vocally about it, as they should. This is because of their self-esteem. They believe that they deserve to be protected and treated equally along with all other segments of society. And if someone tried to pass a law that restricted the rights of Jews, I know that they would fight it with all or the power they had. And I for one would be there fighting right along with them.

There have been Gay people living in Canada since the inception of Canada (and before). But it has been in relatively recent years that we have gained the self-esteem as a minority that was needed to fight for and gain our equal rights.

And their reference to the self-esteem of single people is absolute nonsense. What we are talking about is the “right” to get married. We are not saying that everyone needs to get married, but that everyone should have the right to get married.

Claim 13: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic:

Let me quote their response in its entirety.

“This argument amounts to verbal terrorism. By "homophobic" is meant prejudice and hostility, although this word actually connotes the neuroticism of a phobia. The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly disagree with any claim made by gay people. (Never mind that not even all gay people are in favour of gay marriage.)
Moreover, this is an ad hominem argument. It is easy to trivialize arguments by attacking the personal integrity of those who make them. That way, you need not deal with the argument itself.”

Everything they say in refutation of this claim is absolutely right! And I would like to say that I personally know many loving compassionate people who oppose same sex marriage. I still think that these people are wrong, but they are not homophobic.

The only thing I can say is that just because some people provide a hateful ad hominem argument in favour of same sex marriage, is not an argument against same sex marriage.

Claim 14: Exceptions could be made for religious communities that disapprove of gay marriage, or religious communities could simply add their rites to those of the state.

Well what they said it response to the previous claim was absolutely right and everything they say in response to this claim is absolute nonsense.

In Canada same sex marriage is legal, and the right of Churches not to perform same sex marriages (or any marriage they don’t wish to) is absolutely protected by the Charter of rights.

Claim 15: To sustain an "ethic of caring and responsibility," we must include gay people in every institution.

Again they imply that same sex marriage will harm children. They provide no reason to believe this, and it is absolute nonsense. They also refer to the rights of religious institutions. And again I point out that in Canada the rights of religious institutions are protected. What they do not acknowledge is the hypocrisy that what they are arguing will infringe upon the rights of religious institutions that do want to perform same sex marriages.

They make vague references to the terrible things that will result if same sex marriage is allowed, but don’t even suggest what these things may be, much less give any evidence. I can’t respond to their baseless and unnamed fears, and I don’t need to.

Claim 16: Norms of any kind at all are discriminatory.

Norms are not discriminatory, but imposing norms is. They try to tell us that discrimination is not necessary a bad thing, as in “discriminating taste”. But that implies individual choice, which is what we are arguing for and they are arguing against.

They point out that the human condition does not permit perfect equality. And yes, we must accept the inequalities that are part of the human condition, but that in no way justifies artificially imposed inequality impose by the state.

And again they finish off their response to this claim by lamenting the pitiful condition of the institution of marriage and imply without giving any reasons that same sex marriage will make things worse.

Claim 17: Almost everyone believes in equality. How can we have that if gay citizens are denied the same rights as other citizens?

Here again they tell us that since absolute equality is not possible, and the biology of humanity is inherently unequal, then we must accept this imposed inequality in marriage.

And again they bring up polygamy. Now it seems to me that the relationship between two people is inherently different for the relationship between three or more people. I feel that I can say that because I am not discriminating against the individual in anyway. And I feel that there can be a place for polygamous marriages in our society. But that is another issue.

And for those who are offended by polygamous relationships just let me say this. The argument that “if we allow same sex marriages then we must allow polygamous marriages” make as much sense as the argument that “if we allow heterosexual marriages we must allow polygamous marriages”. One has nothing to do with the other.

Claim 18: Winning the struggle for gay marriage is important for the cause of gay liberation.

No one is talking about confining anyone or even encouraging anyone to get married if they don’t want to. What we are talking about is the right to get married. If someone, gay or straight, wishes to explore a relationship “unencumbered by legal obligations” (or rights), then that is their right as well.

Claim 19: What about majority rule in democratic countries?

Many people have a tendency to use the democracy argument when the majority is in agreement with what they want and claim to stand on principle when they are in the minority. In this case in Canada they tell us that the majority is in favour of Gay marriage. I for one am glad to hear that. But most of the polls I have seen tell me that the country is split around 50/50, some give a slight edge to proponents of same sex marriage, and some say the opposite. But whatever, I actually agree with these people when they say, “counting heads has nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong, wisdom and folly.” That is the reason what we have the Charter of rights, to protect the rights of the individual against the rule of the majority.

 

[Bea Ond]

Claim 20: But gay people are a small minority. Allowing them to marry would mean nothing more than a slight alteration to the existing system and would even add support for the institution. What's all the fuss about?

This argument is hardly disingenuous. The impact to society as a whole would be very slight, and may indeed be a positive one. The reason that it is so important is that the impact to the individual couples could be everything.
No one can predict what the future will hold, not us, and not these people. Again they make reference to some undefined danger and ask people to wait. But a freedom delayed is a freedom denied!

They make another reference to the denial of religious freedom. Despite the fact that when same sex marriage was legalized in Canada the freedom of religious institutions was not infringed upon, but before it was legal the rights of religious institutions were denied. They clearly have this backwards.

They tell us that gay rights activists have made no attempt to consider the rights of society as a whole. This is not true. I have tried to respond to their arguments here, but they really don’t seem to have any. Did civil rights activists consider the rights of society? Of course they did. The rights of the individual are the rights of society. And yes I realize that the civil rights movement is not exactly the same as the gay rights movement, but again they are not completely different either.

They accuse us of Hedonism, when it is them who want us to live together and have sexual relationships without the benefit of marriage.

Again a reference to children, but no reason that same sex marriage would harm children, and no real response to the fact that marriage is intended to protect the rights of children.

Reproductive technology is currently available. Straight couples are using it, gay couples are using it, and single people are using it. Same sex marriage would allow the same protection to children created using this technology. Reproductive technology does indeed bring up several issues, but none of them have anything to do with same sex marriage.

They ignore the obvious and undeniable fact of the situation we are dealing with here. Gay men will be with men, not women. That is what makes them gay. Lesbians will be with women. I know that this is a “duh” statement, but these people seem to imply that this fact will be the result of same sex marriage, when the fact is that same sex marriage is the result of this fact.

Now they seem to imply that all of the problems experienced by young men are the result of same sex marriage. Fatherhood is extremely important whether they are straight fathers or gay fathers. Same sex marriage will not change that. And it is not the issue.

We are all, every one of us a minority. You are a minority of one, what we call the individual. What we are talking about there are not minority rights, but individual rights. We are all individuals; therefore individuals make up the majority.

This is about responsibility, about adults wanting to take on responsibility, about gay adults having the same right to take on the same responsibilities as straight people.





Well that is all I am going to say about this article right now, and I think I have given it much more time than it deserved. If you have a problem with something I said, please let me know. If you think I have misunderstood something they said, or just not responded to a significant part please let me know that to. But for now I am done.

 

[Sunstone]

Something I don't understand is this idea that making Gay marriage legal would somehow mean that straight marriage would become extinct. What is this the logic behind this, I really don't get it.

If you ever find the logic behind that notion, please let me know. I've been looking for a logical explanation of that belief for some time and have yet to find one.

 

[Pah]

The marriage question is not the point of any, less they be theocratic in leaning. Marriage always has been a civil, secular matter in this country even from the times of the Puritans.

The point is that "marriage" is a Christian cover for the exercise of castigating the "abominable". The biblical source for this, including Paul, have been translated in favor of an ignorant, homophobic stance.