SHORT ANSWER
It’s not.
LONG ANSWER
Today’s post is in response to TFP Student Action’s post on “10 reasons why homosexual ‘marriage’ is harmful and must be opposed”.
In case you haven’t noticed (if you were, American say) the UK government is wonderfully close to legalising gay marriages (only to be performed in willing churches). you can find out more about that here.
In response to this a whole bunch of people have been coming on the news, on debating shows, or on pavements, to explain why this is/isn’t a good thing. From what I’ve written so far you may just have inferred that I think this is awesome. I think it is awesome because it makes other people happy, has no negative effect on the life of anyone, and there is no logical, secular argument that has been made against it (yet).
Now that’s a hell of a claim. But I stand by it. So there.
Wait…prove it? By Jove, that would be proving an ethical claim, which (for those not in the know) is pretty darn hard. But, I am willing to go through one set which certainly represent pretty much all arguments against it I have yet to hear. So, without further ado, here is
Why Gay Marriage is (not) Wrong
It is not marriage
This is the claim that “Calling something marriage does not make it marriage”, which is, ironically, the opposite of the truth, and in fact the website says as much (albeit unknowingly) in the very next sentence – “Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman…”. Given that the human race invented marriage, and the human race has not been around eternally, this sentence must mean “ever since marriage was invented it has been between a man and a women” (which is not true – it often used to be between a man and a bunch of women, even in the bible). Given therefor that humanity defined marriage, calling something marriage makes it marriage.
However, what the rest of this point seems to be getting at is that the point of marriage is to rear children. While I disagree, even accepting this claim that does not mean that gay marriage should therefor not be allowed. For a start, we do not forbid marriages between one or two infertile straight people. Also, not all marriages end in children, and people can have perfectly fine childhoods under unmarried men and women. And finally, gay people can still rear children! While I do not disagree that there are undeniable biological and psychological differences between men and women, kids can still be reared just fine by gay couples. We don’t ban gay people from adopting children, so clearly we as a society have agreed that gay people are fine at rearing children. And if the objection here is that gay people can’t give birth (ignoring sperm donations for a second here), then I question where the underpopulation crisis is, because last time I checked it was pretty much nowhere.
It violates natural law
This is the claim that homosexual unions are unnatural (and therefor evil). This is wrong, as we can clearly see homosexual behaviour exhibited throughout the natural world. Interestingly there is a suggestion that homosexuality evolved to do the biological equivalent of adoption – to help provide shelter, nutrition, safety etc. for the offspring of close relatives (the so-called ‘gay uncle’ theory). You can find out more about that here. I also question the premise that “Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.”. This seems to be coming at nature from a religious viewpoint, which would make this argument anti-secular, which I am powerfully against, for reasons I will go into in a future post.
It always denies a child a mother or father
While the essence of this point is correct, the claim that this is damaging to a child’s upbringing is not (see above points). Also, I question the claim that gay people would be getting married to have children. In the UK (where this legislation is being passed) gay people can already adopt. In my opinion it is far more likely that a gay couple would wish to marry for the same reasons as a straight couple – for the legal and financial benefits that marriage brings, and for the symbolic commitment and bonding that it creates.
It validates the homosexual lifestyle
This is true. But there’s nothing wrong with that. Because it’s ok to be gay, just like it’s ok to be tall or blond or black or what ever you are, because being gay is just part of who you are. And I fail to see how letting gay people get married devalues or heterosexual marriage. That’s like saying allowing chocolate ice-cream to exist devalues vanilla ice cream. The only way you can reach the conclusion that gay marriage devalues straight marriages is by saying that it is fundamentally better to be straight than gay. And the only way you can reach that conclusion is through bigotry.
It turns a moral wrong into a civil right
This is really secretly previous arguments presented nicely. It is saying that marriage is for rearing children, and therefor that gay marriage doesn’t work – which is not true. It says that homosexuality is unnatural – which isn’t true. It says that homosexuality is a choice, which isn’t true. Im beginning to see a theme.
It does not create a family but a naturally sterile union
This argument is based upon the idea that the role of marriage is the production (not the raising) of children. I believe that this could not be further from the truth. I have already discussed this above, as many of these arguments are pretty repetitive, the same points in different wrapping.
However, I did want to make one more point regarding this portrail of marriage, namely regarding its implication for sexual equality. It is difficult to say “Fred can’t marry Jeff because he can’t give birth,” without saying “I married you because you can give birth.” Although that could equally apply to men, given that this view tends to be expressed by those on the conservative end of the spectrum, I suspect that this line of argument lies upon the same plane that says the place of women ‘in the kitchen, cooking me dinner’, so to speak. But that’s just a hunch.
It defeats the state’s purpose of benefiting marriage
This is the claim that the reason the state endorses and encourages marriage in order to help create stable families for the benefit of children. Even presuming that this is the case, these people are wrong to claim that this does not apply to gay couples. As in the UK gay couples can adopt children even while not married, un-married homosexuals could still have children (in the sense that they are rearing children, rather than producing them). This means that, marriage being significant of a deep commitment (amongst other things), gay couples with children getting married should (according to this theory) provide a more stable family atmosphere for their children than an unmarried couple. While I do not believe this to be the case, as I have said before, even were it true it could still not constitute an argument against legalising same-sex marriage in the UK.
It imposes its acceptance on all society
There are three claims here. Firstly that legalising gay marriage will cause the state to be “its official and active promoter”, secondly that legalising gay marriage will force businesses not to discriminate against gay couples and thirdly that it will force all christians to accept and condone same-sex marriages. Strangely, again, none of this is true.
The state doesn’t necessarily have to promote a thing merely because it is legal. That is the decision of the government in power, who would in turn be in power based on the will of the people. So if the people are in favour of gay marriage being promoted then it should be? That sounds a lot like democracy to me.
And discriminating against gay people in general is already illegal in the UK, this is effective just extending the nature of being a homosexual to being someone who can marry people they love. This page also claims that it will force unwilling organisations to allow gay marriage which, at least with this legislation in particular, is not the case (See here).
And finally, as I said just now, it is not compulsory to conduct same-sex marriages. So yet again, this point is false.
It is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution
This is the slippery slope argument that “If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behaviour?”, to which there is a very simple response – unlike all those ‘evil’ orientations, gay relationships are consenting and harm nobody. Bestiality – animals cannot consent. Incest – this is potentially harmful to the couple’s future children. Pedophilia – this is both sex without recognised consent and harmful to the children. Checkmate.
It offends god
Oh, how I love this argument. Not because it is valid, but because there are so legion ways to destroy it. Firstly it is anti-secular – it generates laws based on a single religious viewpoint. Given that the opposing option accommodates all religious viewpoints, let god punish those who offend him…or not, most probably. Secondly, it ignores pro-choice christians, who are many in their number. For example, at a recent village fate, my local priest (a cracking guy, by the way), put up a banner proclaiming “I couldn’t believe in a God who hated gay people”. According to a recent internet poll of about 500 christians, 81.5% support gay marriage.
The arguments normally go on to summon up bible quotes to support their position (which is possible for almost any opinion you could ever happen to have). In this specific case the passages offered are
(Gen. 1:28)
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
There are multiple approaches to rebuffing the use of this quote. The clearest two I can think of are as following. Firstly, this command would appear to fall under the [jewish] covenant, which would surely have been superseded with the coming of Jesus. Some people argue that this is refuted by Mathew 5:7, however most scholars interpret that as referring to Law in the metaphorical sense of a moral duty towards god rather than the actual, specific commandments handed down to the Jewish people. However, more importantly, this doesn’t actually say gay marriage is evil or even that men should marry women. It just says that mankind should increase in population and dominate the world…something the world is doing better than ever at in this, relatively enlightened, day and age. Also, gay people could benefit this commandment through the so-called ‘gay uncle theory‘, offered by some evolutionary biologists as to the origin of homosexuality.
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife…’…”
This passage is somewhat more difficult to rebuff. However, I still believe it is compatible with a worldview that says that God approves of gay marriage. Firstly, as people who go forth to the original source of this quote will know, some early manuscripts do not contain the passage ‘and be united to his wife’, upon which this entire argument is based. As the (otherwise excellent) BibleGateway.com doesn’t provide citations for its footnotes I cannot speculate on the origin, nature or number of these alternative manuscripts, however, were the whole Jesus shamble real, earlier manuscripts would surely be more reliable. However, even taking the additional presumption that Jesus actually said that, I believe that Jesus was not talking about specifically hetrosexual marriage. More, he would instead be using imagery and such-forth, as he so often did, to say that human beings should leave the security of their parents, and seek their ‘soul-mate’, a person they love, are loved by, and who makes them happy. Which is, as I said above, actually the whole point of gay marriage, partly.
But, ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what the bible says on the matter, because even if it’s worth reading, one can support any and every opinion with a sufficiently liberal attitude to its 3 000 verses. So yes, Gay marriage isn’t wrong. If you don’t like Gay Weddings, don’t have one.
Rational Rage 