I have a standard set of questions that I ask opponents of gay marriage / civil unions / contracts between people of the same sex. Opposition is almost always based on some variant of “it would weaken traditional marriage,” which isn’t really an answer at all. Next time somebody tells you that, try these:
- Gay marriage is legal in The Netherlands. Has this resulted in more disagreements between you and your spouse?
- In most of Canada, gay marriage is now legal. As these provinces gradually allowed it, did you begin to find that sex with your spouse was less satisfying?
- When gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, did you begin to consider divorcing your spouse?
- With the recent New York Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage in New York, did you consider abandoning marriage altogether?
- What if the town next to yours legalized gay marriage? Would you move away, in order to prevent ruining years of marital bliss?
- If your neighbors were married, and of the same sex, would their gayness cause you or your spouse to “go gay” yourself? Would this inevitably break up your marriage?
- Can you graph — or, better still, write an equation — describing the dispersal rate and signal strength of incipient queeritude, and what distance from gay marriage must be maintained before it destroys your marriage?
No matter what defense is offered by opponents of marital rights, respond with this question: What’s it to you? The same goes for everything addressed by Virginia Family Values: What’s it to you?
There’s my umbrella political position on the matter of nanny-state Republicans. What’s it to you?
I may be missing something, but I don’t think opponents of same-sex marriage are against it because they think it’s going to destroy their own marriage and/or turn them gay. (At least, I’ve never heard that argument.)
–much like opponents of legalized prostitution aren’t opposed to it because they fear they might one day go on a sex-purchasing binge (I think).
–or opponents of drug legalization aren’t opposed to it because they’re afraid they might go on a wild drug spree (I think).
Disagree with them or not, I think this is a mischaracterization of their reasoning. Stanley Kurtz has written some good pieces on opposition to same-sex marriage and the reasoning behind it.
The argument that I hear the most is that it will “hurt marriage.” Of course, you can only hurt marriage by hurting marriages, presumably the marriage of those who complain.
In the case of legalized prostitution and decriminalization of drugs, those are cases where some believe that the sale of sex leads to oppression of women while others believe that it’s a basic matter of personal freedoms; or that the use of drugs leads to medical problems for which the public must foot the bill while others believe that it’s a basic matter of personal freedoms.
On the matter of gay marriage, have, again, the basic matter of personal freedoms balanced against…what, exactly? A contract between two people of the same sex will lead to…what? What’s it to you? (Not you, but, y’know, one.)
What about the “Protection of Marriage” amendment? Obviously, from the name of the amendment, somebody thinks that gays getting married hurts marriage. What, exactly, does that mean? If it doesn’t mean that individual marriages would be hurt, what does it mean?
While I’m on the subject, it drives me nuts to hear the president and others talk about the “sanctity” of marriage. My dictionary defines “sanctity” as “the condition of being sacred or holy, therefore entitled to respect and reverence.” Let’s leave the sanctity of marriage to churches, synagogues, and mosques.
The problem is that we use the same word for both a religious sacrament and a legal contract. It’s the legal contract, and the rights and privileges connected with it, that homosexual couples are asking for.
Since no gay marriage rights argument is complete without someone invoking bestiality and/or polygamy, I’ll go ahead and throw the buzzwords out there to save us all the anxiety. If you ever find yourself arguing for the pro gay-marriage side, consider yourself victorious when you hear one or both of the aformentioned words.
I like to call this argument the “don’t let the gays pee in our marriage pool!” argument. And there is nothing I enjoy more than tearing apart someone who dares make it. I always manage to work Britney Spears into it, which is a plus. A healthy dose of sarcasm is sometimes required. “Did you know that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, you’ll be having sex with your wife, and all you’ll be able to imagine is two guys kissing?”
The most recent argument I’ve been given is that allowing homosexual marriage is somehow a slippery slope down to forced killing of the elderly, and would result in our children’s children becoming apathetic imbeciles who would let our country fall apart. Therefore, society demands that we ban gay marriage, in order to preserve our way of life. Something like that. Oh, and the “it’s against natural selection” argument is always good.
Seriously, they need to come out with a study that says that homosexuality causes cancer or something… because it’s too easy to argue the issue at this point.