Arguments Against Gay Marriage? No, Wait "For"... Hang On...

Bloggified by Jake on Thursday, October 16, 2008

The Republican Part of Arizona must have really be pessimistic about the Grand Old Party's chances in this election. Party leaders pushed to get a right-wing extremist proposition on the ballot to ensure the base turns out. I guess having a popular, hometown Republican senator running for the highest elected office in the land wasn't enough? In a state that's gone blue once since 1950, what makes anyone think there's a need to add an anti-gay marriage amendment to the ballot to get the right wing nutjobs out to the polls?

Proposition 102 is completely unnecessary. If two gay guys get married down the street, it doesn't mean you love your wife any less. Nowhere is the complete pointlessness of the proposition more evident than in the Arguments "For" Proposition 102 section of the Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review Publicity Pamphlet issued by the Arizona Secretary of State.

A simple way to judge if you have a strong argument is whether it can be used just as easily against you as it is for you. For example, if you begin your case with:

A bride and groom, hand in hand, exchanging vows...

A husband and wife seeing their newborn baby for the first time...

Children with mom and dad at the family dinner table...

A holiday gathering at grandma and grandpa's home...

These are some of the things that come to our minds when we think about marriage and family. Aren't these traditions worthy of protecting for our children and grandchildren? Marriage brings happiness, love, and hope for the future.

At this point, you can go two directions. If you're pro-gay marriage, you say:
Why should that happiness, love, and hope be denied to anyone just because of sexual preference?

If you're anti-gay marriage, you say:
God hates fags, so let's make sure they never get the opportunity to experience any of those things or Jesus will cry.

This would be an inherently bad argument, just as pretty much every other case presented on the above page winds up being, though some are stupider than others. Like:

We are expecting our first child in November. It is something we have dreamed about our whole lives. Since we're expecting, we thought it would be fun to watch the movie Father of the Bride Part II.

Sorry, Shawn and Susan Shepherd of Mesa, but you've already lost me by putting "fun," "watch," and "Father of the Bride Part II" so close together in the same sentence. But what I'm getting here is that you are basing your political world view on Steve Martin movies. You supported the airlines' passenger bill of rights because of all the trouble Neal and Del had getting home for Thanksgiving in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. The reason you wants the borders closed is the fear El Guapo will come north and the Three Amigos won't be able to stop him from stealing all our gold. You opposed the banks bailout because "All I needs is this chair and this ashtray and this thermos."

Also, of all the Steve Martin movies to base your political views upon, couldn't you pick one that got better than a 44% rating at Rotten Tomatoes? At the very least, couldn't you have used Father of the Bride? It's like making a reference to "Jason from Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood" as though that will strike a different chord than "Jason from Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning.

Sorry to get side tracked, let's get to the ambiguous set up:
In the movie there are images of family gathered around the dinner table, supporting one another at the hospital and encouraging one another through difficult times. The movie filled our hearts with warmth and appreciation for the simple joys in life as it promotes traditional family values. Such traditions develop over time from the tried and true finest ways to experience the best of life.

Pro-Gay Marriage: Why should we withhold these traditions we hold so dear from anyone?
Anti-Gay Marriage: And because God hates fags--except for B.D. Wong and Martin Short's characters because they are hilarious--we have to do all within our power to make sure they can never get married and hurt our precious Lord Jesus's feelings.

The concept of traditional marriage and creating a family unit is becoming scarce and by many classified as "out of style". However, research indicates that children who grow up in fatherless or single parent home are turning to other sources of support instead of parent(s). As a result due to the lack of dual parental support and guidance this has created a society with increased poverty, crime, uneducated individuals, and increased taxes to name just a few.

Pro-Gay Marriage: So if kids need a father to grow up well-adjusted, having two should be twice as valuable! We cannot underestimate the importance of a couple, regardless of their sexual preference, working as a team when we face the staggering problem laid out in the previous sentences.
Anti-Gay Marriage: But poverty, crime, poor education, and increased taxes are a small price to pay to be assured that God's hatred of faggots remains law of the land and Jesus doesn't have to think about two dudes doin' it.

This last argument also falls into the same trap many of the other arguments do, using statistics and studies that make a case against single parenthood and for the importance of a father remaining in his children's lives. Such as:
Studies have shown that children raised in homes with a father and mother married to each other are much more likely to stay out of crime and poverty, and to have stable marriages themselves some day.

Statistics verify over and over that children who are raised in strong families with a mother and a father are more likely to be healthy and productive citizens in our neighborhoods, our communities, and our nation.

Research indicates many benefits for children raised by a mother and father, including:

  • they are more likely to succeed academically,
  • are physically healthier,
  • emotionally healthier,
  • demonstrate less behavioral problems,
  • less likely to be victims of abuse,
  • and more than 10 other profound benefits.

Women, likewise, have the benefits from healthy marriages to a man, including:
  • they are less likely to be victims of domestic violence,
  • sexual assault or other violent crimes,
  • are emotionally healthier
  • and eight other pronounced benefits.

Men, also, receive benefit from marriage to a woman, including:
  • they live longer,
  • are physically healthier,
  • wealthier,
  • emotionally healthier,
  • less likely to attempt or commit suicide,
  • and seven other important benefits.

Clearly, these are benefits of being married versus being unmarried, not being married versus being married to a gay dude. Nowhere can you show me a long term study that shows married lesbians are more often victims of domestic violence than are married heterosexual women. And seriously, are you going to tell me straight husbands are healthier than gay husbands?

All that said, I personally oppose gay marriage. For that matter, I oppose straight marriage. There is no reason the government should be regulating marriage. Allow anyone who wants to enter into contractual partnership with anyone (or anything for that matter) do so and let churches define "marriage" and who can get married. Let's see some schism!

0 sarcastic replies:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)