Top Five Reasons to Support Gay Marriage
(and why those reasons are still not good enough)
As advocates of gay marriage are seeking to change a tradition that has existed since the dawn of time, the onus should be on them to prove that changing the definition of marriage would be good for society. Here are their five best arguments:
1. Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.
I am all for equal rights. I don’t think the government should be in anyone’s bedroom, telling individuals what they should or should not be doing. I don’t think gay people should be told they can’t marry. But equal rights already exist. Gay people are not asked to use separate bathrooms or drinking fountains, as much as gay “rights” activists want to compare their plight to the Civil Rights Movement. LBGT people do not make less, on average, than others (as even women still do). Most companies now offer same-sex partner benefits. And – get this – gay people have all the marriage rights as straight people.
“Wait! But straight people can marry whom they love; gay people can’t.” But straight people can no more marry anyone they love than gay people can! The restrictions are the same, regardless of sexual orientation: no one can marry someone who’s already married, a minor, more than one person, an object/animal, a close relative, the same gender, etc. There are no additional restrictions on LGBT people. The laws are EXACTLY the same for everyone. And unless we as a society are prepared to throw out everything on that list, we should be very careful about removing one aspect. Marriage: it is what it is for every American, and the laws regarding the institution apply equally to every citizen.
2. You can’t/shouldn’t legislate morality.
Every society has legislated morality to some extent. Passing laws against murder or stealing is legislating morality. My question to gay rights’ activists on this topic is this: If we shouldn’t legislate morality, why should it be wrong to marry your father? More than one person? An animal? If you object to any of these on moral grounds, then you want to legislate morality. Also, just for the record, telling restaurants they can’t sell sugary drinks over 16oz is legislating morality… if liberals are willing to have such minor moralities legislated, they should understand conservatives wanting DOMA. As a side note, though sodomy is illegal in some states, that is not the right being fought for here; policeman are not monitoring bedrooms in any state. What gay rights’ activists are asking for is a public celebration of their sexuality and the public benefits that go with it.
3. Gay is the new Black.
This general idea has become very ubiquitous. Someone in my Facebook feed even compared traditional marriage advocates to racists of time-gone-by who tried to prevent Black people from being able to vote! He said that those opposing gay marriage would be ashamed of themselves in years to come. The article linked to above does a great job explaining how ludicrous this assertation is. One of the author’s main points is that race is something that can be empirically observed; you can’t hide it. I would add that homosexuality has an action attached to it, and it is the action that Christians object to; victims of racism are rejected before they ever act, before they ever speak. If being gay is accepted as being comparable to being Black, then affirmative action will soon follow, which becomes very complicated when it’s based on a non-observable criteria. I would also add that racism, unlike homosexuality, is a generational problem. One’s parents are held back economically or socially because of their race, which in turn, affects the next generation and the next, making the oppressive hand of racism so heavy that it is hard for any individual to crawl out from under it. There is no such generational oppression of gay people. They have no fewer advantages at birth than anyone else.
4. The current thinking on gay marriage is the most progressive and enlightened thinking to have ever existed on marriage in the history of the world. Just because no one’s EVER sanctioned gay marriage before our current day doesn’t mean anything. Evolution has taught us that we are currently the highest form of life, with the highest form of thinking. Ever. I’m not sure that homosexuals should be using evolution in their arguments (though it may be more implicitly than explicitly present), yet in the SCOTUS hearings, that’s the answer that was given for why a change from traditional marriage should be considered necessary at this time. But if you follow this line of thinking, and evolution has its way, gay people will either settle down with someone of the opposite sex to rear children, or never pro-create. Either way, the gene would necessarily (according to evolutionistic theory) eventually be diluted and die out. If evolution is more cyclical and not as simplistic as I’m making it out to be, then how can we be so ready to throw out centuries of wisdom in such a short span of time? The evolutionary argument on one hand works against the longevity of homosexuality and on the other hand supports marriage laws being changed because of our progressive and enlightened thinking. Both cannot be true.
5. True libertarians should support gay marriage.
I strongly lean libertarian politically. And that is, in part, why I cannot support gay marriage. As indicated in point #1, this is much less about gay people getting rights and much more about forcing the rest of us to condone a behavior we disagree with. A wedding photographer was taken to court because she didn’t want to take on a gay couple as clients – she didn’t want to celebrate in photographs what she felt to be an affront to God. Even if you think she was wrong, don’t you think she, as a small business owner, has a right to choose her clientele? The courts didn’t. If gay marriage is sanctioned, and if homosexuality is put into the same category as race, it will likely follow that adoption agencies will be forced to choose between placing babies with same-sex couples or closing their doors. Businesses will be told to provide benefits to married, same-sex couples, regardless of the business owners’ religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby, anyone?). Sanctioning gay marriage doesn’t just allow couples to “love and let love.” It involves the government in more details of our private lives than ever before. And it invades freedom of religion in a way never before seen (or even conceived of!) in America. Speaking against homosexuality in public, even from the pulpit, will be considered a hate crime, and pastors will either shut up or risk jail. Discerning libertarians see the writing on the wall and oppose gay marriage. Or they at least see that we should allow states to choose their own laws so that U.S. citizens/businesses have options for establishing a residence where they can freely practice their religions.
Just because the gay rights’ movement has lots of outspoken, powerful supporters: our president, celebrities, etc. doesn’t mean that it has logic on its side. And just because a current trend seems fresh and progressive, doesn’t mean that we all have to jump on the speeding bandwagon while waving rainbow-colored flags. We can want all people to have equal treatment under the law without wanting to celebrate and sanctify an idea that is newer than DVR technology as a replacement of an institution existing from the beginning of time.