The advocates of changing the historical meaning of marriage have done a good job at framing this issue to their advantage. They say it is about giving rights to those who don’t have them to make things “fair”. In reality, it is about helping the political cause of a group at the expense of 97% of the rest of the society. It is not about marriage. How many gay friends do you have that actually want to get married? How does that compare to the percentage of single heterosexual friends you have that want to get married?
A small percentage of the population is homosexual, and much smaller number of them have significant interests in marriage in itself. Marriage is not as big a part of the homosexual lifestyle as it is the heterosexual lifestyle. But if marriage rights are given to this group, they will feel more respected, represented, and financially equal to the rest of us. This doesn’t sound that bad, and some effort should be made to give them some rights. I had one friend that had to move for work reasons and had no help moving their partner, when their relationship was serious enough that the partner did end up moving with my friend at their own expense. (However, they were not committed enough to stay together for more than a year after that move and had never considered marriage or anything like it). But the point is, what is the cost of giving them the full rights of marriage? I believe the costs are high. Marriage has been defined as a legal commitment between a man and a woman, with the primary result of raising a family, for thousands of years (or more). It is one of the pillars of our society. It is like changing the definition of “Mother.” There have been exhaustive studies and statistics on the detrimental affects on society when traditional marriage is weakened. There has also been significant evidence that changing this historical definition of marriage will in fact weaken the traditional marriage, and therefore society, for the benefit of a fraction of homosexuals who want to get married, and therefore an even smaller fraction of society as a whole. That is why so many people want to “defend marriage.” And it should be framed that way. It is not about fighting against homosexual rights. It is not about trying to force some code of morality on a small group of people who don’t have the same morals. It is about defending traditional marriage and defending society from the further weakening of the family. Marriage is an ancient institution which, I believe, provides many moral and spiritual benefits, but also cultural and practical benefits to society. I believe this institution should be protected for these reasons. We should also work to show respect for those who may not have similar beliefs, as they should show respect for a belief that is so important to so many others.
In Defense of Marriage
November 20th, 2003 · 9 Comments
Tags: politics
9 responses so far ↓
1 travis // Nov 24, 2003 at 1:48 pm
excellent point. if only all discourse on this topic could be so clear and even-handed…
see our own attempt at http://www.all-encompassingly.com/archives/000135.php
2 Jill Mortensen // Nov 26, 2003 at 10:12 pm
Logic vs. Morals in the argument against Gay Marriage
The comments made by James gives logical reasons for not supporting gay marriage. I think there are several reasons why logic alone will not succeed in convincing anyone to oppose Gay marriage. One reason is there are plenty opposing logical arguments that support gay marriage. The problem with logic is that when you are talking about human behavior the logical thing depends on what the individual is trying to accomplish, and that could be as individual as his or her morals. Another problem with arguing with logic is you avoid the argument “that it is morally wrong” and by doing so you lose the bigger argument that “God is real and we should follow his commandments”. If we put religion aside than who decides what is right and wrong? It is then a matter of opinion.
By avoiding the moral issue and giving people who participate in homosexual behavior other government protected rights, as James suggested, we are saying that homosexual behavior is acceptable. One problem that presents is that if being gay is accepted by our government then that means it is ok to teach about it in our schools.
Lets get something straight here. It isn’t the person that is discriminated against. It is the act, the sin, that is prejudiced against. A person that acted in another way that was considered morally wrong, a liar or child molester etc. , they could be discriminated against as well and for good reason. I believe we shouldn’t give people rights because of their sexual preference. I believe everyone in this country has a right to not interact with someone that doesn’t act in a way that they believe is morally right.
A lot of people know someone gay or have gay friends they care about. So how can we convince them or other people to adopt our morals? People can read scientific data, people can even see miracles but that isn’t what changes their heart. We need to let others know where we stand. We need to be good examples, good neighbors and friends and not be afraid. We need to be a force for righteousness. It is going to take more than politics it is going to take a lot of love, sacrifice and involvement in our communities.
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace
Alexander Pope, “Essay on Man”
Politics and the constitution are not the place for convincing people to adopt certain morals, rather politics and the constitution are there to represent the morals people have already adopted. We can not expect our laws to represent us if we are not the majority or if we are the majority and we don’t act.
An ominous warning was voiced by Laurence M. Gould, former president of Carleton College:”I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles. I don’t think our civilization will die that way. I think it will die when we no longer care. Arnold Toynbee has pointed out that 19 of 21 civilizations have died from within and not by conquest from without. There were no bands playing and flags waving when these civilizations decayed. It happened slowly, in the quiet and the dark when no one was aware.” 1.
We need to quit beating around the bush. Our opponents aren’t afraid to say what they believe. Neither should we.
1. Ensign Magazine, July 2001
3 Doug // Dec 3, 2003 at 4:59 pm
My few thoughts on the topic….
Why does marriage exist?
The reasons are many: the raising of children, promotion of monogamy, etc.
Are not these aims of marriage equally noble for homosexuals?
In today’s politically correct environment, the prevailing attitude is “yes, of course.”
One may counter: “But wait! Marriage has only traditionally bound women and men together. It serves as a binding fabric of society that strengthens the family: the foundation of our communities and country.”
The reply? “Sure, ‘historically’ perhaps, but not today. Cast a glance at divorce rates, needless to say the amount of adultery, and you’ll quickly conclude that marriage no longer serves such an idealistic end.”
It is becoming clear to me that “gay marriage” became inevitability when “straight marriage” was thrown by the wayside.
4 James // Dec 5, 2003 at 11:36 pm
Do you believe that due to the sorry state of the institution of marriage today that gay marriage cannot weaken it any more than it has already been weekened? Or do you believe that marriage still serves an idealistic end for those that do respect it still, and that it needs all the help it can get, for the future of children, families and society as a whole?
5 Doug // Dec 8, 2003 at 9:31 am
I whole-heartedly oppose gay marriage.
Nonetheless, in the coming fight over gay marriage it will be very difficult to muster support to oppose it, given the current sad state of marriage in America.
It is a challenging proposition. In light of Lawrence v. Texas I don’t see a way that the Supreme Court will rule against gay marriage. The only hope is a constitutional amendment, which would need President Bush’s unlikely political support.
Conclusion? Unless the vast majority of religious organizations across the country announce a coordinated push for the constitutional amendment I think that within two years gay marriage won’t be inevitable, it will be reality.
6 Nate // Dec 19, 2003 at 2:15 pm
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as others raped their children and household pets after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
“My marriage is over,” said one upset Christian as he dry-humped the fender of a parked car. “My marriage isn’t worth anything,” he insisted. “I feel no connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I please, when it pleases me to do it.” With that he turned to a passing elderly woman and shouted for her to reveal her “tits.”
This same scene is being repeated over & over again, on every street in every city and town in America. Once devoted parents and spouses, America’s Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and their families as they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
“We warned you that this would happen,” insisted one anti-human rights activist. “We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would destroy marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now it’s happened,” he said. “You should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn’t have had to have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom this morning.”
The fallout from today’s decision is enormous and far reaching. So big is the change that swept America this morning that it may be days before a true accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand, one uncomfirmed report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, defecating on his bible upon hearing the news, while other witnesses have come forward to report that they had seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition and the host of the 700 Club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the thousands of new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children. It is hoped that this is only a temporary measure and that Christians will yet accept the financial reponsibility for their families, even if they no longer love them and insist on masturbating in public.
7 Rod // Jan 14, 2004 at 11:37 am
While I respect both the logical and moral arguments made above, there’s still part of the logic that escapes me: how exactly gay marriage threatens straight marriage.
If a loving gay couple pledge to remain together to the end of their days, how does that threaten my marriage?
I see only benefit to gay marriage: all the personal effect a long-term, stable relationship has on anyone, straight or gay; the fiscal bebefits marriage grants, which it is only logical to extend to them; as well as the example to the promiscuity-prone gay community that monogamy and fidelity are beneficial.
I see no threat to my marriage: they coexist peacefully in my mind.
To frame the question another way, if the gay lifestyle is abhorrent and immoral, isn’t a married gay couple a little less abhorrent and “more like us”? Isn’t it a step in a positive direction?
I concede the moral argument: there’s no way to make gay marriage square with any mainstream theology.
8 Fried Kate // Jan 21, 2004 at 1:01 pm
It’s safer to play with a man’s wife than with his cliches.
9 James // Mar 15, 2004 at 4:08 pm
Thanks for comments. It’s interesting to read them now that gay marriage has started down a slippery slope to acceptance across the country through illegal marriage licenses.
The satire above wins points for creativity, but loses points for missing the reality of the issue. Marriage is weakened by the acceptance of gay marriage just like any contract loses its meaning when the laws governing contracts are changed. If you step back a bit, it’s easy to see how gay marriage would weaken families and weaken society as a whole, even without the empirical evidence. Sure it sounds great when you read the cute stories in the NY Times about a loving lesbian couple that has been together for years and is so happy now to be married. But for every one of those stories, there are a million other heterosexual couples whose view of marriage changes slightly to one of less meaning. If a lesbian couple can marry, and adopt a child, and call themselves a family, what’s the point in a heterosexual couple getting married rather than just living together? Or why not have three women living together? Who’s to argue three mommies aren’t better than one? Then what is a mother? It’s not something sacred. It can be manufactured to fit the lifestyle of anyone. Unlike in the dramatic satirical essay above, society will change little by little and family relationships will be changed and altered. Marriage will be less of a goal for young adults and children will suffer. These children will grow to adults themselves and will lack the strong upbringing that a proper family can provide. Children without fathers suffer. Children without mothers suffer. No homosexual couple can provide both a mother and a father.
Maybe it’s not possible to explain it to someone with very different perspective. But there is evidence out there that proves the point.
For example, in Norway, some churches fly rainbow flags. The flags signal that clergy who would preach against homosexual behavior are banned. Since these banned clergy are the same ones working and preaching about the importance of marriage vs. pre-marital sex and cohabitation, this part of the Norwegian culture (if there is any left), is being further weakened. Traditional marriage is being weakened by the acceptance of gay marriage. It does hurt the majority, at the expense of a very tiny minority.
I would actually like to see the illegal marriages continue for a few months, because that’s probably all it would take to get every gay couple married that’s interested and we would finally have a statistic on how small the demand really is.