Argument # 1: Can society force what it believes the definition of marriage is onto the homosexual community?
Many in society are under the impression that those against gay marriage are attempting to force a religious belief onto the homosexual community. In reality, there are many of different faiths, beliefs, and political groups who are against gay marriage for practical reasons. That being said, is it okay for the state to define marriage between a man and woman? Well, only if the outcome of the definition is in the best interest of the country, and this is where most disagree on the gay marriage debate.
The problem is no one puts the conceptualization of creating ‘oppressing’ laws into perspective. After all, our states already deny rights to minorities; in fact, they deny rights to every individual in the United States. If laws ban killing or stealing, it is quite obvious that we no longer have the freedom to kill or steal – therefore our rights to kill and steal are taken from us. In an ‘absolutely free’ society, are we allowed to do this? Obviously we can, because we are not an ‘absolutely free’ society and denying these rights are in the best interest of our country.
The difference between the law banning killing or stealing and a law banning gay marriage is that banning killing or stealing is universally accepted by society as a whole, and many do not believe gay marriage will have a detrimental effect on our society in the long run.
Or we could look at this question another way. In either case, someone’s forcing their beliefs onto another. If gay marriage is passed, the heterosexual community is being forced to accept the definition of marriage as between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman. Whereas if gay marriage is not passed, the homosexual community is forced to accept it is between a man and a woman.
Argument # 2: Just like slavery and women’s rights, isn’t society simply taking away the human rights of homosexuals to marry?
After researching countless articles, I have found some studies conclude individuals may be born with a pre-disposition to homosexuality. Now it is important to differentiate between a pre-disposition and a genetic absolute, because this is what the above argument claims. A person is born African American or a woman, this is an absolute. Since it is an absolute, it means they have absolutely no control over it, a woman cannot will herself into a man – therefore we cannot deny her rights as a woman, because she has no control over it.
If someone were born pre-disposed to being a woman, which is a silly thought, it means they have the ability to change it on their own. Just as a person born with a pre-disposition to becoming an alcoholic or being intelligent has the ability to change it. If I am born with a pre-disposition to intelligence, it does not mean I will be intelligent, it will all depend on the choices I make. Also, demanding rights as a result of my pre-disposition to intelligence would be frowned upon, should I have different rights because I am pre-disposed to intelligence? This is the fundamental difference between slavery, women’s rights, and homosexual human rights – it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
This argument can only be valid if the ‘gay gene’ existed – with this gene one can prove, beyond a doubt, an individual is born homosexual, just as one can prove, by more obvious methods, a person is born a woman or African American. However, according to
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html and many other studies, “Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated.” This is one of those issues I strongly encourage others to research on their own, as there are many ideas floating around out there.
Argument # 3: So why are people so afraid of gay marriage?
I would not say the majorities of individuals are ‘afraid’ of gay marriage, although I do know some people who are. The reason they have concern over this debate is the potential consequences of re-defining marriage based upon behavioral choice. If you notice, as I have stated above, homosexuality has not been proven purely genetic, since this is true, if marriage is re-defined based upon these circumstances, it must always be re-defined on these circumstances.
In other words, twenty years from now, when marriage between four men or four women is considered, our society will be forced to allow it – and one can rest assured, the gay marriage case will be cited within that courtroom.
It puts the conceptualization of marriage at danger of having a definition that will eventually become nothing more than a bundle of legal rights with no reference to a family unit. Gay marriage may not destroy the family unit, but future marriages required to pass as a result of it will.
Argument # 4: Since we do not know what the future holds, isn’t the slippery slope argument a weak one?
Should we do everything in our power to prevent terrorist attacks? Or should we do nothing on the assumption everything will be fine? The concept is to protect the family unit for society as a whole, as it is essential to maintain financial and social health in society.
Of course no one knows the future, but this does not mean it is unintelligent to create laws to protect it. When our founding fathers created the constitution, one of their primary concerns was to ensure a secure longevity of their documents and laws – and they strongly took into consideration the long-term consequences of each law that was written. This is all I am attempting to do here.
Argument # 5: Why do you care what choices these individuals make? It has no effect on you.
I’d argue everything we do affects those around us. When someone insults you, it puts you in a bad mood, does it not? If someone drives drunk, it puts you in danger. If someone compliments you, it may put you in a good mood, unless you are a strange person. If a complete stranger cuts you off, you get angry. Many of the things we do throughout our day have a large impact on others. Most of us do not realize the impact we have.
However, my argument is not against their individual behavioral choices. I love that everyone in our society has the freedom to make both good and bad decisions. Freedom of choice is what being American is about. The primary concern is the legal and societal consequences of gay marriage, nothing more. This is not an attempt to discredit them based upon the choices they make.
Feel Free to Debate Me on this Issue!
Craig Chamberlin
Assistant Editor