Gay Marriage Q+A

Unlike, it seems, most Americans, I am in favor of granting the right of any two consenting adults to have their marriage recognized by the state. Denying this right to gay couples, many of whom love each other and have a real commitment, is, simply put, a form of discrimination.

Here, therefore, are some of the arguments against gay marriage along with some possible answers:

Argument: God says homosexual activity is a sin and that marriage is a sacrament made EXCLUSIVELY for a man and a woman.

Answer: Maybe this is true and maybe it isn't, but in any case this is essentially a religious argument. We cannot use solely religious arguments to circumscribe the rights and choices of those disagreeing with that religion or with the views of some sub-group of its adherents. This does not mean that religious views have no place in American life or that they should not affect people's views regarding public policy, but there needs to be some kind of overlap between the religious argument and a more secular or universal argument. For instance, the prohibition against murder and theft has both religious and secular support. If gay marriages are to be against the law we first need to show a clear and present danger regarding the alternative. We know, for instance, that if theft and murder was legal there would be mayhem and we all would literally be at risk.

Argument: If religion cannot directly be involved, then what about world-wide tradition? All around the world--at least for all of recorded history--marriage has been between a woman and man.

Answer: You can look at the same world-historical record and also consistently find: 1) no democracy; 2) slavery; 3) despotism; 4) the oppression of women. If we are to use the world-historical record as a blue-print for our society, we better institute an autocratic, slave-owning, utterly man-controlled, un-free society. In any case, this argument is obviously pretty weak. Just because people lived a certain way for thousands of years does not mean that way is best. Though it's not popular to point out in some circles, there really is such a thing as progress, however mixed or complicated or qualified it may be.

Argument: If you legalize marriage between a man and a man, then you'll have to legalize marriage between siblings, between parents and sons and daughters, between adults with children, and also between three or more partners. (i.e. polygamy)

Answer: What about people and animals? Or lonely men and blow-up dolls? But seriously, how many brothers and sisters or mothers and sons want to get married? Any? So few, in any case, that this is really a red herring, unlike gay marriage, which could have hundreds of thousands of takers. The same almost goes for polygamy, though perhaps some Mormons would begin openly to practice it. To tell the truth, though, I am not certain why incestuous marriages and polygamy should explicitly be illegal. You can say it's pretty sick or confused or out-dated, but it seems difficult to argue that two adults mutually consenting to be sick, confused, or out-dated should be prevented from being so by the state. In any case, as I said, this would be an issue in such an infinitesimally few cases that it hardly warrants serious concern. As for adults marrying children, this is and should be illegal since children are not adults and therefore require special treatment and protections. The special status of children is an idea strongly embedded in our society. (despite the fact that, at least in Revolutionary times, girls being married off at thirteen was not uncommon in some parts of the country)

Argument: Legalizing gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage.

Answer: How? As if the institution of marriage has not been undermined already by the incredibly high divorce rates! (a problem, I might add, you very rarely hear big social conservatives address--at least not publicly. This, even though, technically, according to the Bible, most people who are divorced and have remarried are committing adultery--like Newt Gingrich or Bob Dole) I also, by the way, hear disparaging remarks concerning marriage all the time. The amount of pessimism about the institution has been pretty high for as long as I can remember. Neither the divorce rate nor these scurrilous remarks have any connection to gay marriage, and they, I would argue, are doing far, far, far more to undermine the institution of marriage than anything gay people could ever accomplish. The question of just how gay marriage would be a threat to the rest of us is still a deep mystery.

Argument: People who are "gay" are that way by choice. They are not like blacks or Appalachian-folk or women: they have a CHOICE and therefore should not be given special treatment.

Answer: Taking this tack pretty much means calling many gay people liars. Many gays, after all, stridently claim they have no choice at all; that they felt the way they do long before they were even aware of what the terms gay and heterosexual meant. I do not see why this is so hard to believe. In my own experience, I certainly didn't "choose" to be heterosexual. Even as a little boy I was interested in girls in a special way quite different from the way I was interested in boys. The thought that I should or could be attracted to a man never crossed my mind until well into adulthood, and even then was never a remotely serious question. My heterosexuality is just a part of me. I didn't choose to be this way, I can't change, and it's simply who I am. From everything I have heard, it is the exact same way for many gays.

Argument: But aren't there "gay" people who have chosen to become straight?

Answer: Possibly. Sexuality, after all, is often not black and white. What is referred to as bisexuality is probably very common, meaning, that there are many people who can be drawn toward either sex, even though possessing, in some cases, a preference. Thus some people could choose to limit their behavior to heterosexuality and still be satisfied. (this would not, of course, change their fundamental FEELINGS--which would still be bisexual in nature) But even if some people actually can "switch," in some sense, their sexual preference, this does not mean that everyone can. (could any of you?) Finally, there have been numerous examples of "changed" people changing back and revealing that they never stopped being gay: they had just stopped their homosexual behavior and outwardly acted straight--for instance by getting married and having kids.

The notion that homosexuality is always a choice can be dismissed on further grounds. For instance, on the common sense ground that no one would willingly claim to be something which would endanger his or her friendships, family-life, job prospects, chances of going to heaven (according to some), and even life and limb for no compelling reason. The suicide rate among gay teens is three times the national average for people of their age group. It is also estimated, if I recall correctly, that something like 40% of all runaway kids are gay. Does it make sense that something with such unpleasant consequences should be a "choice?" You would probably be just as likely to choose to have gum disease or cancer.

It should also be noted the cause of all this emotional suffering in all likelihood has everything to do with society's negative view of homosexuality and not anything having to do with homosexuality in and of itself.

One Final Too-Long Digression: The reason, I think, that some religious folk don't want to admit that homosexuality is NOT a choice is that the Bible, as far as I can tell, only speaks of homosexual acts as sins which are symptoms and signs of a deeper and more systemic evil and degradation. It does not seem to recognize the existence of gay PEOPLE, only the existence of an activity which acts as the tip of an entire iceberg of immoral, wicked, and Godless impulses.

This is most clearly seen in Paul's rant against those who have turned away from God in Romans, starting at 1:18. Here, homosexual activity is listed as JUST ONE sin that "God has given [sinners] up to" because of their shameful refusal to "honor him as God, or to render him thanks." Note, however, that it is this last bit that is actually the FUNDAMENTAL sin and the real source of all the others which God, as punishment (or as a way of setting them up for further punishment), "gives them up to." The people who commit the sin of rejecting God not only turn to homosexual activity and idol worship, they also, as Paul notes, "are filled with every kind of wickedness, villainy, greed, and malice; they are one mass of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and malevolence; gossips and scandalmongers [!]; and blasphemers, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent new kinds of vice, they show no respect to their parents, they are without sense or fidelity, without natural affection or pity. They know well enough the just decree of God, that those who behave like this deserve to die; yet they not only do these things themselves but approve such conduct in others." In sum: people reject God so God stands aside to let them reap the inevitable fruits of their rejection. With regards to homosexuality, then, the message here is not simply that some folks are committing a sin: it's that they have REJECTED GOD AND THEREFORE ARE CONDEMNED TO ALL THESE OTHER SINS AS WELL! No wonder many fundamentalists don't want to admit that homosexuality isn't a choice: of course it's a choice, because it's a sin. Furthermore, it is a sin that derives from the rejection of God, the greatest sin of all. No wonder, as well, that there is such a visceral hatred of homosexuals among some people: homosexuality is just the tip of the iceberg.

A second Biblical example is the story of Sodom. In this story, as you will recall, Lot, who lives in Sodom, is visited by two angels who are trying to get him to leave the city before God smushes it. While the angels are staying with Lot, however, "the men of Sodom, both young and old, everyone without exception, surrounded the house. They called to Lot: 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have intercourse with them.'" Now, from our modern perspective, what are we to make of this? Sodom is even worse than prison! Could everyone in the city be that sexually deprived and/or just happen to be a homosexual rapist? But from another perspective it makes more sense: the attempted mass rape (do not even attempt a visual of this) is simply a sign and symbol of the city's broader degradation and sin. Every man in the place being a homosexual rapist just means that they all are terrible sinners who deserve to be destroyed by God.

All in all, then, I guess even without gay marriages we're still lucky. In the Old Testament, the prescription for gays is stoning. Which means we actually have enjoyed some progress after all.

In conclusion, just let me say that true marriage is based on love and the concomitant desire to share one's life with another person forever. True marriages require, as my wife Faith says, unconditional love, humor, forgiveness, and communication. There are many straight marriages that lack these things; there are many gay relationships that have them. I say we give everyone the opportunity to give it their best shot with whomever they like and leave the details to them. I wish everyone would see that it is short-sighted, ignorant, and cruel to deprive a certain group of human beings of the rights and risks of marriage, especially when those human beings' possession of those rights and their taking of those risks is very unlikely to hurt anyone else in any substantial way. Thinking that God says it's a sin or feeling you'd never do it yourself are not good enough reasons to continue with the status quo. True love exists between people of the same sex, people who could never be happy in heterosexual relationships: let's accept that fact, give them every opportunity to be happy, and move on.

Final Note: If you are interested in exploring this subject further, I would highly recommend reading Andrew Sullivan. His two books, "Virtually Normal" and "Love Undetectable," are very good. The latter, especially, is interesting, and is a book full of insight about life in general (not just "gay life")--it is also extremely well written.