Taking baby-steps towards true egalitarianism
Before I’m accused of being obsessed with offbeat stories of Americana to justify some personal enmity, bear in mind that I mention this story because the topic of opposition to gay marriage perenially rears it’s ugly, anachronistic head in this and most other Western countries. Whereas I could make broad, sweeping indictments on how embarassed I am to live in a world where gender neutrality regarding the right of marriage isn’t a foregone conclusion, I’d rather concentrate on each specific argument posited against in turn. Not just because expounding the nuts and bolts of a complex issue is the best way to understand it (as much as one can understand an incomprehensible position), but because it quickly becomes apparent just how little grounding any of the arguments have in reality.
a) “I read it in a book, so it must be true.”
Passages in scriptural documents of Christianity (and, by association, Judaism), Islam and Hindi declare homosexual acts and relationships to be immoral and deviant.
Disregarding the degree to which millennia-old religious scriptures are, or ever were, at all relevant, enforcing legislation against same-sex marriage based upon this argument is a clear violation of state neutrality towards religion (to make matters worse, it is biased against certain sections of the religious community who take a more liberal view of official scriptures and the meanings behind them). All religiously-based criticisms are therefore irrelevant in law. Next.
b) “Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.”
Even without the biased religious term “sacred”, this statement is based mostly upon traditionalism and revisionism. I’m sure a century ago, the implied definition of marriage was sabotaged even further to “the sacred institution between a man and a woman of the same race”.
Marriage, n, legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners (Encarta Dictionary)
I think that’s a pretty good definition.
c) “Won’t someone please think of the children?!?!!?”
Exposing children to married homosexual couples puts them at risk of being sexually assaulted or in some other way “subverted”.
This profoundly bigoted statement is not only based upon the preconceived notion that homosexuality is morally questionable, but is contradicted by empirical data. As for the “subverted” part, overwhelming scientific evidence has indicated that sexual preference is genetically predisposed or developed in-utero. Nor is homosexuality even an inherently human characteristic, having manifested itself in over 300 species.
d) “Marriage is based primarily upon procreation and child-raising.”
Bullshit. Thousands of heterosexual couples marry each year either with either no intention, or a physical inability, to have children. Many in relationships raise children without ever getting married. Are we living in the Third Reich? When we marry, are we entering into a social contract in which we promise the state a maximal number of progeny?
e) “Not all gay people want to get married.”
Not all heterosexual people want to get married.
f) “Recognition of gay/heterosexual marriage equality will force widespread reforms in the health and employment sector.”
ARGH! Not progress!!! Monetary cost is a flippant concern when it comes to individual human rights. I’ll bet slavers used a similar argument before the American Civil War.
Are there any more? I’d love to hear about them. If they actually force me to think for more than 5 seconds, you get bonus points. I also welcome any legal types to tell me if I’m oversimplifying. As much as people may like to bang on with alarmist rhetoric concerning the “backbone of civilisation”, the strength of a society, in my bloviated opinion, is based not upon the resilience of heterosexual marriage, but upon how justly and fairly it treats it’s citizens, regardless of what characteristics they are born with. In the area of gay equal rights, most countries are still disconcertingly deficient.
