It seems that the religious right wing never gets tired of using the same old discredited arguments. I actually don’t support the left on this issue either, since I think that government involvement in marriage is unnecessary. But bad arguments annoy me, and I think they’re polluting our political discourse in this country. The central problem with the arguments from the anti-same-sex marriage side is that they go against the principles of our democratic republic. One of those principles is neutrality with respect to religion. The fact is that we are not a Judeo-Christian nation. We may have a highly religious population compared to other countries, but that doesn’t mean that religion should be built into our laws and government. In fact, having separation of church and state is exactly what makes America’s government different from – and better than – the governments of countries like Iran. Any appeal to homosexuality being “wrong” or “sinful” because the Bible says so is highly irresponsible, if you’re using that as a reason to ban same-sex marriage.
Because of separation of church and state, it is illegitimate to base any laws on religion, including a ban of same-sex marriage. If you think homosexuality is wrong, give me some non-religious reasons for why you think so.
The only such reason I have seen is the argument that homosexuality is “unnatural.” That argument is somewhat confusing, since “unnatural” could mean a variety of things. It could mean “man-made” or “artificial,” but in that case, the anti-gay marriage side would have to say that cars and computers are wrong, too. “Unnatural” could also mean, “animals don’t do it.” However, it would be false to say that animals don’t exhibit homosexual behavior. Does anyone remember the reports about the gay penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo? Besides, even if it weren’t true that animals exhibit homosexual behavior, the argument would still be bad. We do all sorts of things that animals don’t do, such as wear clothes. Does that make wearing clothes “unnatural” and wrong?
“Unnatural” could also mean, “doesn’t serve its natural purpose.” However, I don’t think that human beings have a natural purpose – we create our own meaning in life. But even if it were true that we had a natural purpose, why would going against that natural purpose be wrong? For example, we go against the natural purpose of noses all the time by using them to hold up glasses.
The anti-same-sex marriage side sometimes argues that we should ban same-sex marriage because it doesn’t lead to procreation. Well, that settles it: let’s pass a Constitutional amendment banning World of Warcraft and Everquest. Seriously, though, if all things that didn’t lead to procreation were wrong, then literally the only right course of action would be to have unprotected intercourse with the opposite sex all day everyday. That sounds like fun, but I don’t think that’s what the anti-gay marriage side intended to argue for. To give them some credit, there is something to be said for continuing the human race. However, I don’t think we’re in any danger of extinction right now, considering that fact that the world population just surpassed 6.5 billion people.
Another argument that the anti- same-sex marriage side uses is that same-sex marriage would harm children. It’s rarely stated, but I think this argument rests on the belief that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. However, the facts say otherwise. According to Robert Geffner, editor of “The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,” several small studies have shown that homosexuals are no more likely to molest kids than heterosexuals, though no large-scale research on the subject has been done. Also, in a 1992 article in Child Development, research psychologist Charlotte Patterson wrote, “not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”
Perhaps the most effective anti-same-sex marriage argument is that same-sex marriage would devalue traditional marriage. That would not happen. Think of the reasons why people get married and why they value marriage: love, mutual commitment and stability are the main ones. All of those are equally possible in a same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage does not undermine traditional marriage.
An argument that Robert Knight favors is that homosexuality is a form of risky behavior that should not be encouraged. That is simply not true. Anyone, straight or otherwise, can practice safe sex if they choose to do so. Even if it were true that homosexuals tend to be less cautious, that would not be a good reason to discriminate against them.
I’ve also heard this argument on occasion: “Homosexuals already have equal rights: the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.” I can just imagine someone saying this a few decades ago, when interracial marriage was a big issue: “Blacks already have equal rights: the equal right to marry another black person.” Both arguments should be disregarded as simple prejudice.
There are many more faulty arguments that the anti- same-sex marriage side uses. All I can say that whenever you encounter them, be sure to point out their obvious problems.
Michael Hugman is a student at Virginia Tech.