Throughout my life I’ve heard a plethora of arguments against allowing same-sex couples to marry. Being young and naïve and influenced by a largely homophobic environment, I found the arguments sound. Now that I’ve allowed my mind to mature and reason I’ve reconsidered my earlier ideas concerning same-sex marriages. I realize now what it is we deny same-sex couples and how arguments such as family instability, tradition, slippery slopes, religion, and naturalism are virtually unfounded. Further, I’ve studied a little about what law is and discovered that there is a defining difference between legal and moral issues along with problems of majority vote pertaining to civil rights.
Through the following arguments I hope to show the reader that arguments against same-sex couples having the right to marry are unfounded and that their stance should be reversed.
What We Deny Same-Sex Couples
There is no question about it; same-sex couples are denied the same civil rights of opposite-sex couples in the realm of marriage. By not allowing same-sex couples to marry we keep them from the benefits of marriage such as: the right to inheritance, hospital visits, tax breaks, joint insurance, etc. Granted, there are ways to achieve some of these rights (though not all), but why should same-sex couples have to jump through hoops to achieve it?
The one stepping stone that has helped in the acceptance of same-sex marriages is the establishment of civil unions. While some states do allow civil unions, they are restrictive at least on a national level (tax breaks), and often lack the same rights on a state level. Additionally, the whole concept of having a ‘separate but equal’ union of two people who are of the same-sex is evidently similar to ‘separate but equal’ facilities for African Americans.
When we look now upon the injustices of separate but equal facilities between black and white Americans, we assure ourselves that we’ll never let something like that happen again. Yet here we are, repeating history but with homosexuality in place of race. Ask yourself why ‘separate but equal’ was unjustified then and see how many similarities you can draw between the now and then. You should find the same arguments that both were not in fact equal and that the system inherently bred prejudice against the minority. Years from now, when America has granted full marriage rights to same-sex couples, you’ll have to look back on your beliefs and try to justify them to future generations. Would you listen to your ancestors professing separate but equal facilities for African Americans?
They Already Can Marry
It is true that homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose to. But the suggestion that homosexuals just marry someone of the opposite sex for the benefits itself demeans the ‘meaning of marriage,’ which usually is held dear to those opposing same-sex marriages. But even if not, you still have the problem of denying same-sex couples the right to marry breeding prejudice against homosexuals. Further, you still do not allow many of the benefits that would be useful to same-sex couples such as visitation rights and inheritance (which can be worked around in some states but should not need to be so). Also, you still deny same-sex couples the economic stability function of marriage - really the only function that the government claims.
Same-Sex Parent Environments as Unfit
It is often argued that children growing up in a single-sex environment will lack significant human developments or that there lacks stability in the relationship. If those proponents of said argument were to look at the research supplied, they would find no cause for their side.
First off, concerning single-sex environments, there are and we allow single parents to foster children in their care. Furthermore, regardless of the fact there are two people of the same sex caring for a child, there is one more person than a single parent which actually gives more stability, not less, to the family unit.
Second, we already allow same-sex couples to adopt and have biological children through artificial insemination. If anything, by not allowing same-sex couples to marry the children in their homes might wonder why their parents haven’t married which could disrupt the family unit (I do not claim this to be so - I only suggest the possibility).
There has been no solid reasoning on the presumption that same-sex family units are unstable or unfit, and in fact studies have shown quite the contrary.
Survival of the Species
Opponents will argue that in order for the human species to thrive and continue reproduction is essential and can only be propagated by the marriage between one man and one woman. This is borderline a naturalist fallacy but I’ll argue it through other means.
First, same-sex couples already can reproduce using artificial insemination or a surrogate mother. Second, many opposite-sex couples choose not to reproduce and/or cannot reproduce due to infertility and therefore reproduction cannot be a requirement for marriage. Third, many claim that the world is becoming overpopulated so that allowing some marriages which do not reproduce would be beneficial to the survival of the species. Fourth, artificial insemination and surrogate mothers allow for the testing of and eradication of sexually transmitted diseases which combat the survival of the species.
Our species will not become extinct or anywhere dangerously close to because we allow same-sex couples to marry, and allowing same-sex marriages maybe we’ll be better to maintain it.
The Requirement of True Love
People might argue that a marriage is about two people who love each other deeply to share their lives, and that same-sex couples are incapable of feeling that love. Regardless of whether same-sex couples can feel the same way as opposite-sex couples, there is no love requirement for a marriage.
We’ve all seen movies or read/heard about stories, or even experienced ourselves, of two people getting married very quickly for various reasons. Some people are desperate, others seek financial rewards, and yet others do it as a way to rebel. The fact is that there is no love requirement for marriage. Las Vegas weddings are a reality. People marry each other for green cards or tax breaks. Others marry because of social pressure or through loneliness. Often there is no love between two people who get married, or they lose that feeling later in their lives. Love is by no means a requirement, and furthermore, there is no way to measure it objectively. Sorry to disappoint, but those machines that tell you you’re a ‘cold fish’ or a ‘hot tamale’ cannot actually measure your love-level.
Second, who’s to say that same-sex couples cannot have the same feeling of love? Many people have experienced a ‘brotherly love’ far more powerful than the love for their spouses. Many consider love to be nothing more than a good friendship with physical attraction. If we can love our neighbour, than certainly people can love deeply people of the same-sex.
The Tradition of Marriage
Probably the most prevalent argument against same-sex marriage is that allowing such marriages to occur will destroy the traditional view of marriage. However, not only can and have traditions been antiquated, many aspects of the very tradition of marriage itself have been antiquated.
What kind of tradition is marriage? Yes, for eons only opposite-sex marriages have occurred, and in that sense it is ‘traditional’. But also, until as of late, slavery has for eons occurred world-wide, and in that sense it is ‘traditional’. In this sense of tradition it was traditional to cut off the hand of a thief, and it was traditional to have sex and marry people of 14 (I realize that this is still done in practice but it is no longer tradition in the sense that it was pre 1900’s. In America, at least, the states which allow this also require parental consent, which arguably was not required in older times – at least not legally). Does the fact that they were once long-standing traditions justify any of these?
They’re not justified because the traditions allowed for direct societal harm. We don’t still have slavery because it didn’t recognize human rights. We don’t cut people’s hands off because it’s a cruel and unusual punishment. We, generally, don’t allow sex and marriage at young ages because people of considerably young age are not capable of making decisions of that nature.
But maybe you think the ‘tradition of marriage’ is different. Then realize that you are denying same-sex couples the right to marry. And that directly harms society in ways such as prejudice and lack of civil rights.
The concept of marriage was created by priests to unify two people. The word marriage has been carried over to legal implications in America. Thankfully, since America is secular, any religious connotations from the word marriage are not in consideration in American law. Now knowing that the word marriage would contribute to such a catastrophe against civil rights, it would have been much better to avoid the word marriage in government documents and used the term civil union instead. Then everyone would receive a civil union, and people could, if they wanted, to have a marriage – specifically a private ceremony in religious terms that has nothing to do with the government. These private religious organizations could refuse who they want but the government would recognize only and all civil unions between any two people. Marriage is simply the government recognition of the union of two people for economic stability. Any religious connotations you add contradicts the idea of secularism. Indeed, many have suggested doing away with marriage completely and only recognizing civil unions which grant the same rights.
Lastly, the tradition of marriage used to have the notions that people do not get divorced, that one cannot remarry, that contraceptives shouldn’t be used, and that interracial marriages are wrong, among other notions. Obviously we don’t accept these parts of the tradition anymore as we can think of numerous occasions where it is conceived as permissible to allow these aspects to be disobeyed. We’ve already done away with so many aspects of the tradition that it is hardly a tradition anymore.
Forcing Priests to Marry Same-Sex Couples
Religious organizations will claim that allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized will force religious organizations to participate in same-sex marriages in spite of their personal beliefs. This issue is a little complicated, but it is actually a non-issue.
First off, this argument is not against same-sex marriage; rather it is against the government forcing religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriage. So although completely irrelevant (unless direct causation could be found, which it is not) I will touch on this subject.
As long as any organization receives a significant amount of public funding it is a public organization and therefore is subjected to public law. Since religious institutions, such as churches, receive a significant amount of money from the government (which they do in America, especially since George W. Bush has been in presidency) they are public organizations. Therefore it may be just to force priests from churches who receive this funding to perform same-sex marriages under penalty of law. I will not argue this further and will not claim it to be just or not because that is beyond the scope of this paper and irrelevant as I have pointed out. But if a religious organization receives little or no money than it would be a private organization and therefore it would be unjust to force priests to perform same-sex marriages, just as we allow Ku Klux Klan members to organize anti-black and anti-Semitism rallies.
Therefore this is an argument that is not related by causation to allowing same-sex marriages and is therefore irrelevant. Further, it is not clear whether or not it would be just to force priests to perform same-sex marriages.
Nonhuman Animals
This is among the most ridiculous arguments. The arguers that use this say that if we allow same-sex marriages there will be nothing in the way to stop people from marrying their pets. There are so many things wrong with this argument it’s hard to know where to begin.
First it suggests that the love between two people of the same sex is equal to a person and their pet, which is of greater or equal degree between two people of opposite sex. This is very belittling to same-sex relationships and unreasonable. I’ve already argued that love is not a requirement and that marriage only requires two capable consenting adults.
Furthermore there is no reason to believe that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to marriage between animals and humans. People and pets will never be able to marry because a pet is not a capable consenting adult. It is ridiculous to say that a pet knowingly knows that it is getting married and consents to it any more than a 12-year-old does.
Polygamy and Incest
Opponents of same-sex marriage will often make the argument that, similar to nonhuman animal marriages, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to polygamist and incest marriages. Again, these arguers never have a reason to believe one will lead to the other and simply state such to try to erroneously equate the two. Further, this argument assumes that polygamy and incest is wrong. While this is a whole other topic of discussion, I’ll tread on it lightly.
Polygamy has both benefits and detriments to society. Firstly, polygamy can increase family unity and stability, especially in areas where there is a high death rate of the species. In polygamist families first wives welcome the addition of other wives because they help with the load of carrying for the family and household. This can increase family stability. You could argue that the jealousy that arises in these families disrupts the family unit, but you’ll have to prove to me that jealousy does indeed arise enough to do so.
In non-polygamist societies, such as America, jealousy does arise because people in those societies are so unfamiliar with the tradition of polygamy, not because polygamy necessitates it. Another argument I’ve heard against polygamy is that in societies, as it is in most, where the population is split closer to 50/50 between males and females, it would be hurtful to society to allow polygamy because it would restrict further the number of one sex to another which would lead to fewer marriages which would disrupt economic stability in the society and longevity (since it has been shown in studies that married people live longer). However, there are so many people that don’t marry that there should be plenty of ‘extras’ in society that this argument would fall apart. Also, this argument only pertains to one male and multiple females, and not to multiple male and female marriages and one female and multiple males. In such a case, the male to female marriage ratio would average out to 50/50. But without going any further into the societal harm of allowing polygamy, it is unclear whether we should or should not allow it. And more so, the arguments that would arise from polygamy being hurtful would not be able to be applied to same-sex marriages.
Concerning incest relations, first this would be only an argument against a sibling or ancestral marriage since up to first-cousins can marry. Second, there is a genetic mutation problem with allowing incest marriages. Then, you may argue, that a same-sex incest marriage could be allowed since they could not reproduce with each other’s genes. Further, it may be argued that the dynamic of an incest marriage is disruptive. I do not claim to know whether this is true, and I don’t believe you can claim it either. But more importantly, none of these arguments can be assimilated to an argument against same-sex marriages.
The opponent of same-sex marriage using this argument, therefore, has at least two major problems with using it as fuel for their side. First, they’ll have to show that polygamy and incest marriages have a net negative effect on society. Second, they’ll have to show that their arguments can be used against same-sex marriages. I believe that both cases will be most problematic and perhaps impossible.
Gender Identity
Given that you oppose same-sex marriages, you’ll have to define what a same-sex marriage is. This may sound easy but it gets rather complicated with people who identify with a gender opposite their genitalia.
First off, you have hermaphrodites. These are people who have both male and female genitalia. Second, there are transsexuals. These are people who identify with a gender opposite that of their genitalia. Third, there are people who undergo sex changes. Fourth, you have males who have XX chromosomes and females who have XY chromosomes. Though this last condition is extremely rare, it does on occasion happen and therefore you must be able to deal with it in terms of marriage. Each of the people in these categories is a functioning adult. You could argue that these people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, but that’s an obvious prejudice and disregard for civil rights.
First you’ll have to separate same-sex marriage based on the idea of homosexuality or the act of homosexuality. You’ll have to do this because transsexuals would be participating in the act of homosexuality but in their mind they are having complete heterosexual sex.
If you think same-sex marriage is based on the idea of homosexuality, then you have a problem with people who might change, figure out later, or have just lied about their true gender identity after they get married. This would essentially lead to allowing same-sex marriages. Also, it is possible in America to change your legal gender and thus bypassing the requirement of opposite-sex marriages.
If you think same-sex marriage is based on the act of homosexuality, then you also have the problem of people undergoing a sex change mid-marriage. Sex change operations are confidential, so you may never know with absolute certainty that one person has undergone the surgery. Again you would essentially be allowing same-sex marriages. In fact, if you undergo a sex change, it is legal to marry the sex opposite of your post-sex change. Note that sex changes do not change your chromosomes and therefore chromosome requirements are nullified.
You also couldn’t determine who should marry who based on their chromosomes because there are abnormal cases where males and females have the chromosomes of the opposite sex.
It’d be far easier, justifiably and necessarily so, to allow anyone to marry someone of any sex.
Religious Arguments
Many people will quote the bible as justification for opposing same-sex marriage saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. For all time and in every country there has been and will be a religious base that uses it’s scripture to determine what is right and wrong. In particular to America, you, generally speaking, have denominations of Protestantism which are very prevalent throughout the country. They often use their own scripture to command what is right and what is wrong and claim that that should influence politics.
Fortunately, though seemingly rarely recognized, America is not a country ruled by religious scripture; countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Cambodia, etc. America professes that the government should be, and is, secular. Based on this basic principle of secularity, no argument based purely on a religion should be considered. We all realize that this is not the case, but it is claimed so by the American system.
The reason secularism is so important is that the instant you declare one religion in a country to have absolute authority, you deny all other religions existent to have a say in the government lest their views lie in line with the authority. If you prefer religious autonomy in American society, you ignore America’s basic idea of secularism and freedom of religion. Furthermore, you create prejudice against differing religious peoples effectively removing the right to freedom of religion.
You might argue that you can uphold secularity but still follow your scripture. This is true in some respects but only where it coincides with arguments not based on any particular religions’ god(s) figure by declaring it so, though that may be all you argue. But if you get into an argument and it comes down to you necessarily saying ‘because my god said so’ then you’ve not only succumbed to an authoritarian regime (or a cosmic mugger) but you’ve also declared that your god is the one and only authority on such matters and that all other presumed gods are erroneous or nonexistent. At this point the only leg you have to stand on is the presumption that you know which religion is right… but lo and behold your arguer may say the same thing and have the same presumption about his/her own god(s). Since neither is verifiable in argument, you’ve come to an argument stalemate. In fact it becomes a circular argument (it is right because my god said so, and my god said so because it is right) which is a fallacy of arguing. Therefore, one can never use his/her religion as the sole basis of an argument.
The Naturalistic Fallacy
Probably the most used argument I’ve encountered is that homosexuality is not natural and therefore wrong and/or should not be encouraged by allowing same-sex marriage. This argument happens to also be the most easily fallible. Specifically it is known as the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. I’ll describe it a little here and suggest you research it yourself as it will probably be better explained elsewhere.
First, one must define what ‘natural’ is. This is a very complicated task. You might think a tree is natural but someone else might not since it was grown in a laboratory and subsequently planted. You might think that the diamond on your ring is natural but someone else might not since it was created in a laboratory in a high pressure machine. You might think the earth is natural but someone else might not since it was created in a cosmic laboratory by some god or gods. We might try to define natural as all that has not been affected by mankind, yet as soon as mankind existed it had an effect on everything even if it be only a slight gravitational pull. I agree that in general we do all tend to agree on what is natural and what is not, but it is not clear-cut and I expect that there will always be an opposition to anything being called natural, even if a small minority. Not only is it difficult to define but it’s also impossible to determine the true nature of any object.
Second, even if you could define natural, there is an inherent problem with equating morality to it. If a bicycle is not natural, does that mean it is bad? If your grandfather’s pacemaker is not natural, is using a pacemaker immoral? It’s easy to see that you cannot equate that which is natural to that which is good unless you create a circular argument or redefine natural as good saying that ‘all things natural are good, and all things good are natural’. Again, circular arguing is a fallacy and is therefore void.
Third, even if you thought you could convince yourself that only things natural are good, you’ll still have a problem with arguing that homosexuality is not natural and therefore bad. Homosexuality occurs on numerous occasions in the animal kingdom. Steers will have sex with heifers, dolphins will form homosexual partnerships, and male walruses will have sex with each other outside the breeding season. Also, birth, it is said, is a natural process as are the processes of mitosis and meiosis and the creation of your DNA and personality. Then so is homosexuality.
People do not choose to become homosexuals. Teenagers do not strive to be ridiculed at school for taking interest in the same sex. A person cannot determine their sexual excitement towards any particular sex. It is as natural as anything developmentally human, and the act of homosexuality is as natural as masturbation.
We can also thank Alfred Kinsey for his virtually uncontested study on human sexual behaviour. For those that do not know about it, Kinsey’s report found that on a scale between 0 and 6 on the level of homosexuality of an individual, those who described themselves as 1 and over on the scale were much more prevalent (or statistically significant) than thought; specifically a small minority were either a 0 or a 6 - this does not qualify homosexuality for being categorized as abnormal any more than heterosexulaity. This may astonish you, but the study remains supported and is used widely by scholars. To say that homosexuality is not natural defies years of extensive studies and is backed by hardly any. And I’ll further say that I myself am probably close to a two.
Regardless of the proficiency of homosexual behaviour in nature and whether it justifies as being called natural, you cannot equate that which is natural to that which is good without performing a quite obvious argumentive fallacy.
Morality and Legality
There are many cases where something is considered immoral but not illegal. In general, legality is a subset of morality. Recognizing the difference is essential to knowing how to apply law to morality.
If you still think that what your religion dictates, or what you personally feel, as right and wrong is the ultimate authority on such matters, then you’d still have to determine where it should be law and where it should not. For example, you may think adultery is wrong but it is not illegal to act upon it. Granted that in divorce proceedings it becomes an arguing piece for property rights which does have to do with law, there is nothing directly associated with adultery being illegal, especially if a divorce does not occur. Similarly, lying may be thought of as immoral but we would never throw people in jail for lying, generally. Why do we make this distinction?
We make it, for one reason, because adultery and lying are so prevalent in our society. Some 50 percent of people in America have admitted to cheating on their spouses at least once. That’s a whole lot of federal bureaucracy and overcrowded jails. Similarly, everyone has lied numerous times in their lives.
The other reason we make the distinction is that there is no conceivable significant direct harm to the person committing the act or being affected by the act. Yes we do hurt inside when our spouses cheat, but the harm done is not physical and is proportional to the level of emotion attached to the other person. Lying is illegal when there is considerable direct harm done to a person or persons, but mostly the harm is negligible and could be more due to the susceptibility of the victim.
Homosexuality is not illegal in America, nor should it be. Same-sex marriage by no means harms anyone. No person is going to contract a deadly disease or have their appendix explode because a same-sex couple got married. There is no conceivable harm to the society in America allowing same-sex marriages, and there is plenty of societal harm in the form of prejudice against same-sex couples.
Furthermore, on the flip side, studies on Scandinavian countries which allow full marriage rights to same-sex couples have shown a significant decrease in the rate of divorce in heterosexual couples.
Leaving it to Majority Vote
People will argue, erroneously, that we should leave it to the consensus of the majority population to decide whether we allow same-sex marriages. Thankfully, we do not live in a strictly democratic nation but rather a representative democratic nation.
The problem with leaving it to the majority vote is that people, generally speaking, are uneducated or have not heard sufficiently the arguments for allowing an ordinance. That’s why we elect officials to represent us and argue for our interests after hearing the arguments of both sides of an issue, even if they do ignore some of them. No one can argue without fallacy that what is right is what the majority thinks is right and I hope nobody believes that the majority is always in the right.
This is not to say that the common people should not have a say in their government. In fact they do when they vote for their representative officials. Since I don’t have a very strong political background I’ll try not to delve too far into the intricacies of American government. But when it comes to civil rights abuse, it is common for the majority of people to be in favour of the abuse, and only through our elected officials is the injustice able to be overturned. Indeed, the majority of Americans at one point in time were in favour of restricting African American rights and we can thank Lyndon Johnson for righting our wrongs. Now, no self-respecting American citizen would think that it was a good thing to limit civil rights to whites, and I suspect with time the same will be thought of when it comes to limiting civil rights to opposite-sex couples.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that all arguments against same-sex marriage stem from a personal aversion to the idea that comes from religious and/or societal upbringing. Same-sex parental environments are not necessarily any more unfit than that which we already allow and studies have showed quite happy family units exist in same-sex parental environments. The human species will not go extinct by allowing same-sex marriages and reproduction cannot be a requirement for marriages since we already allow non-reproducing couples to marry. Love, also, cannot be a requirement because there is no way to measure it and we already allow marriages without love. Traditions are not justifications and marriage is hardly the tradition it was. The slippery slope fallacy arguments such as non-human marriages, polygamy and incest are irrelevant. It becomes particularly tricky and arguably impossible to define what an opposite-sex marriage is when it comes to gender identity dilemmas. Religious arguments have no base in secular societies and equating natural to good is a fallacy of its own. Same-sex marriages do not harm society and therefore should be legal and its immorality be left to the individual as we do with anti-black sentiments. We cannot leave the ultimate decision to majority rule because that is not how our government should work and that’s not how it does work, especially in the cases of civil rights abuse.
The reasons for allowing same-sex marriages go on and on as the reasons against same-sex marriages diminish. Luckily humans have a brain that can reason and control emotions which lead us to perform injustices. Many of the world’s problems stem from discrimination - homosexuality being one of those problems. I hope you will take an active role in preventing further discrimination.
I welcome any arguments, additions, or corrections to my views.
~Michael D. Watts
2 comments:
I think in one fell swoop, you pretty much said it all. I challenge any reader to defeat these points!
Right on. I wish California the best of luck tomorrow, and I hope we've changed enough since 2000. I'm not necessarily counting on it, but I sure hope the demographics have shifted enough.
I know how i'll be casting my ballot.
Post a Comment