Arguing Gay Marriage. Again.

The passing of Proposition 8 in California and the aftermath have re-ignited arguments surrounding gay Marriage. Thought I would address a few…

1. It is not traditional

Certainly the most common. We hear, “Marriage has traditionally been defined as one man; one woman, and to allow something other than that traditional definition would be wrong.”

Why? Traditions change. Laws change. People change. Interest rates fluctuate. Limited time offers end. Believe it or not, humanity managed to muddle on.

Marriage, at one time, “traditionally” meant one man and multiple wives. “Traditionally” required a dowry. “Traditionally” required the father’s blessing. (Tevye sings vociferously on this very point!) “Traditionally” required the church’s blessing. “Traditionally” prohibited mixed races from marrying.

And those traditions changed. This is simply another change.

Yes, we ARE asking what you consider “traditional” to change. So what? Where is it written “Traditional is always, always, always correct. Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye?”

This is a horrible argument, because it fails to demonstrate why we must stick with what is “traditional.” (And why didn’t we in the past?) It is a law. It is established by the government. Laws can change. Even Constitutions can change. We are asking for a change in the law. To whine, “Hey, we can’t change” is a pretty stupid argument.

2. Children

There are a variety of arguments under this heading. Gay’s can’t naturally produce children. Children would be harmed by learning of a law allowing gays to marry. Children will be taught in school that gay marriage is acceptable.

First, the thing about gays not naturally producing children. True—but marriage is not defined by “having children.” I thought (see above) the “traditional” definition was “one man; one woman” Not “one man; one woman; one child.” Ain’t it funny in one breath the complaint is how gay marriage violates some definition by asking it to change, and in the next, the person is asking for a change in the definition!

I’ll try to make it clear--Marriage has nothing to do with children. If a couple has a child, and the child dies—are they no longer married? If a couple is married without a child (either by inability or choice) are they not married? If a couple is not married, but has a child—are they married? If a couple leaves Boston on a train going 60 kph, and they don’t have any children on the train coming from San Francisco at 80 kph—are they still married in Kansas?

Second—I hate to tell you, but kids already know about homosexuals. They already talk about it. To pretend they don’t know is to remove yourself from the real world. If you are really interested in what is being taught to your children in school—ask yourself these questions. How many school board meetings have you attended in the past year? How many classes have you helped out? How many field trips have you been a parent helper?

3. It is not natural

Well…homosexual sex has been observed in other creatures, so I am not certain what is meant by “natural.” Are you saying there are penguin marriages? Presided over by Penguin pastors, attended by the little penguin bride and her penguin flower girl? (The penguin bridegroom is formally attired, of course.)

Marriage is a human construct. Yes, some creatures mate for life. But they aren’t “married.” Only humans, by definition of law, are “married.”

This is a re-wording of the “against tradition.”

4. The Bible is against homosexual acts.

Finally. A legitimate argument. Many people don’t like homosexual marriage. In their opinion (and that is all it is—an opinion), they do not want it. They can bolster this by claiming their God says it is wrong.

Hey, if you want to live your life and vote for/against laws by your opinion of what aliens whisper in your brain during sleep—so be it. In the same way, if you want to vote for/against homosexual marriage because of your opinion about some Holy Writing—that is equally your right. Heck, if you want to vote by roll of the dice—you are free to do so.

What surprises me is that this argument is mixed in amongst the others. If one’s god teaches against it—who cares if it is traditional, natural or whether children are involved? If this is a person’s reasoning—this should be the ONLY argument, and more than sufficient.

Here’s the thing—the person is concerned this isn’t convincing. They recognize that maybe—just maybe—other people do not hold their Holy Writing in such high opinion. Therefore they stretch out, trying to bring in other arguments. Other “reasons” (and I use the term as loose as an XXXL shirt on an anorexic) to persuade non-Holy-Writing-believers that homosexual marriage is wrong.

Do they understand by abandoning their own standing of this being the “Word Of God” by bringing in other arguments they undercut any force the “Word Of God” argument has? If they consider their Holy Writing insufficient to be a sufficient argument, and need these other arguments to make their point—why should we consider it a sufficient argument either?

When are we going to cut it to the quick? Lose the dross of “non-traditional” or “not-natural” or “no-children”? Call it what it is—certain people have an opinion against homosexuality; they find support for their opinion in their God, and will vote against homosexuality because of their distaste.

Not because of their concern over re-writing dictionaries.