12 Arguments against gay marriage

| | Comments (5)

   On the way home from work tonight I heard Dr. James Kennedy on Alan Colmes (Air America). He was speaking about why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I tried to call in about a dozen times to a busy signal. He insinuated that gay people are gay because someone raped them involuntarily [sic] or their parents did something bad to them. That always makes me mad - for someone to say that my parents did anything wrong infuriates me. My parents are wonderful parents, and I if I could choose who I wanted for parents I would choose my wonderful family. I suffered no serious trauma of any sort as a child. I did not choose to be gay. In light of the 11 states recently writing discrimination against my family into their constitutions, I thought I'd sum up Kennedy's arguments and respond, one by one. I'm sorry but he has a full 12 arguments. In my opinion, they are in direct opposition to the US Bill of Rights, and are too full of mistruths and distortions to be considered a real argument against gay marriage.

   Like the 12 Days of Christmas, let's sing this one verse at a time.
   1. "God opposes homosexuality" - When did God say this? I'm aware that the Bible has verses that can be interpreted that way, but the Bible was written by man, not God. It has been through multiple translations. I know of no hotline that one can call to speak to God directly. And who's God are we speaking of? I would say this speaks to the thinking that one and one's views are superior because they are the word of the higher power.
   2. "It goes against nature" - Actually, homosexuality does exist and has been documented as existing in nature. And with the world population increasing at a rate that earth will not be able to support everyone at some point, homosexuality isn't all that bad when it comes to reproduction. And for a gay man to sleep with a woman would be going against his nature.
   3. "It goes against all recorded history" - Actually I think it was recorded in ancient Greek and Roman history. I also seem to remember a Biblical story that could be interpreted as a tribute to "male companionship." (It's all in the interpretation isn't it?) And so what if it's not in recorded history. There are many parts of the modern world that we take for granted that are not a part of recorded history. Are we supposed to live in the past?
   4. "It will hurt children." - There are no studies that I know of that are done by reputable scientists and institutions that conclusively indicate that children of gay parents turn out any less well adjusted than children of opposite sex couples. If you know of any, let me know.
   5. "It cheapens marriage" - If someone else getting married cheapens your marriage, then perhaps some therapy is in order. Not to be a smartass, but how does Joe Schmoe affect someone's marriage? I suppose if you are already in a heterosexual marriage and you go marry someone of the same sex then I can see that cheapening your original marriage. But that's against the law anyway in any case. The data that Kennedy cites is largely disputed because there exists no specific causal relationship between the decline of marriages and gay marriage. It's like saying that lower smoking rates are causing lower marriage rates.
   6. "Gay marriage will unleash a legal nightmare." - Yeah, and the freedom of slaves must have caused a legal nightmare too. You know, who belonged to who? Gosh what a pain! C'mon, we're going to categorically deny a group of people equal access to rights because of a legal nightmare? And let me tell you about a legal nightmare. It's having to go to a lawyer and pay big bucks to draft documents to protect your family when a straight couple can just get married and those rights are already granted. Or it's having to litigate just to see your partner in the hospital. And the argument about health costs rising is moot. Many companies already offer domestic partner benefits. My company does, and I enjoy one of the lowest medical co pays in the nation.
   7. "It will sink the culture from civilization to barbarianism." - Oh dear goodness... Is this a serious argument? For the sake of it we'll assume it is. Gay people have existed in society for all time. Wouldn't we have sunk already if homosexuality was such a threat? We're not talking about destroying families, we're talking about creating them. Kennedy states that, "The traditional family cannot coexist with same-sex marriage for any length of time." It's not a reality show where they have to live in the same house. And if a traditional family can't live with a same-sex household down the street, then there are problems in the traditional household itself. Blame, blame, blame...
   8. "It destabilizes all of society." - Boy that's a fear inspiring statement! The arguments that he puts forth are actually all solved by same-sex marriage. He says that if there's no permanency then society will fall. Marriage is what makes a family more stable isn't it? So if gay people marry, would that not make their families more stable. Add the rights and responsibilities of marriage to the gay family, and most of his arguments are answered.
   9. "What's next?" - Now we're talking about pedophilia and bestiality. These really make me mad. I don't want to marry a minor, and I don't want to marry my cat. Do you?
   10. "It will hurt women" - We're still on argument #9 where he says we'll have polygamy next. What hurts women is when a man is forced to live a lie, marry a woman, and pretend to be straight for the sake of his family. Kennedy's viewpoint seems to advocate lying about one's homosexuality to promote a life that is not one's own.
   11. "Same-sex marriages can produce no natural offspring." - Neither can heterosexual marriages where one couple is infertile. And some couples choose to have no children. Should their right to marry be abdicated? Kennedy's argument (as it is on his website) seems more focused on Christians making more babies than Muslims. That's a bit off topic and so is disqualified as a valid argument.
   12. "Same-sex marriage will criminalize Christianity." - Actually, the reverse is true. Radical Christianity seeks to criminalize homosexuality, and for decades this was true. And the truth is that gay marriage isn't about controlling Christian churches, but is about equality under the law. If a church chooses to not allow gay marriage, then we'll get married in other churches that allow it or by civil ceremonies. This is like saying allowing divorce criminalizes the Catholic Church. What should be criminal is spreading the preceding 12 mistruths and distortions about gays and our families.
   In a country such as the USA where the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights contains, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection is the foundation of America. It is a guiding principle. I would seek to protect a Christian against the same discrimination that I face. I would do the same for any group that does no harm to others. To protect one group is to protect us all, to protect America. Kennedy's 12 reasons against same-sex marriage do not seek to protect anyone from any real harm, nor do they contribute to the basic principles and values that make us American. But of course the 1st Amendment says he can say whatever he wants. But it doesn't say anyone has to believe it.

(source: http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2004_aug_pg4.htm)

5 Comments

a-[e] said:

Sad isn't it? The truth is fanatical religions like fundamentalist christianity devalue humanity and set us on a course toward barbarism.

Buck said:

Actually, the Bible contains two references in the Old Testament to homosexual relationships. You were referring to David and Jonathon in Kings 1:20.

There is another part that is often used in straight marriage ceremonies that never ceases to crack me up. It involves two women: Ruth and Naomi.

"And Ruth said, 'Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:'" -- Ruth 1:16 (King James Version)

bitzky said:

Yes, that is really sad.

Here is a link to a heated discussion. Some Bible quotes are mentioned there and I do the best to explain that they are not strictly against homosexuality.

http://masterguy.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=330380&valert_id=514992#325331

Or you might simply google :)

Visit me!!! ;)

donna said:

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can think those are legitimate arguments against gay marriage. But the one that burns me the most (mainly because I know someone that has actually said this) is the one about cheapening marriage.

#1 Heterosexuals have done enough ourselves to cheapen marriage. Who Wants to Marry My Dog's Dwarf on national TV has really pulled marriage down a few pegs. Or drive thru chapels in Vegas.

#2 How does what anyone else does affect the marriage between me and my husband? I just don't get that. Our marriage is our marriage and remains unaffected by whether anyone else gets married or not.

Can I apologize on behalf of all idiot heterosexuals who have voted to ban gay marriage?

Sam said:

I want to say something to voice my support, but I just having nothing profound to add. So I'll just add a comment. :)

p.s. One thing I have been thinking recently though, is that the whole marriage debate is such a charged arena to even begin to get into. I am a little puzzled why so much energy is being focussed on 'marriage' per se. I would have thought people would be more successful to go for amendments to help ensure civil rights/hospital visitations/superannuation/etc. individually. The little things that are harder to deny (even for the 'right') are basic rights every human being should be entitled to. Otherwise it is just getting bogged down in semantics about what marriage is, and no progress seems to be getting made. If anything it appears to be giving the 'right' more ammunition.

Wouldn't a 'dismantle the wall brick by brick rather than try push the whole damn thing over at once' approach, be more effective in achieving the end goal?

/my $0.02

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by DJ published on November 6, 2004 1:58 AM.

moving on from here was the previous entry in this blog.

Still a patriot... is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.01