(no subject)
My defense of gay marriage:
The idea of marriage changes throughout history, and the way we perceive marriage today is relatively new. Until the 1500’s, marriage was not even recognized as an official church ceremony. Divorce, contraception, and interracial marriage were for a long time opposed, and women were often considered property of men. We understand now that those ideas were forms of discrimination because the basic rights of marriage were not equal for all people in all situations. Today, marriage is typically viewed as a civic right that every individual has, all the time, to share his or her life, goals, and responsibilities with another consenting adult to achieve the basis human needs of happiness and security. It is easy to see in hindsight that the earlier discrimination of marriage has been improved upon greatly, as now most everyone is allowed his or her rights, but while the notion of marriage we have today has progressed from the discriminatory past, discrimination is still a problem because opponents of gay marriage are presently denying homosexuals their rights based on morally invalid and hypothetical arguments. Opposition to gay marriage is not pro-marriage, but anti-gay, and no arguments against homosexual marriage are any more valid now than the similar arguments from the past were valid then. Gay marriage should not be prevented from two consenting adults, but ought to be encouraged, because being homosexual does not deny a person a moral capacity, nor does it disallow his or her civic rights to marriage.
Some would argue that homosexuals do not have the right to marry because homosexuality is not a naturally occuring thing; the argument being that it is a choice to prefer same-sex attractions. A*** J****, an editor of the Berry College Campus Carrier, said in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "I see [homosexuality] as a perverse deviation chosen by the person. The day that someone can prove to me to my satisfaction that people are born gay is the day that I will reconsider my views” (Arey). A*** J**** is arguing, and he is not the only one, that the preference of homosexuality is “chosen” by the person. That argument stands completely against the intelligent and thoroughly researched claims made by most people in the scientific community today. Here is the official American Psychiatric Association (APA) stance on homosexuality, “All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm the homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health organizations and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal of their own country of legislation that penalized homosexual acts by consenting adults in private.” By and large, the APA, an organization more capable of understanding sexual orientation than A*** J**** and others with his same opinion, is convinced that homosexuality is something that happens to a person, not something that a person happens upon. The APA also goes on to say that it is not appropriate for psychiatrists to attempt to alter the sexuality of a patient (APA). This clearly shows that the APA understands that the preference of homosexuality is not a choice made by homosexuals and should not be treated as such.
That brings us to this question: does homosexual marriage somehow undermine the fundamental idea of marriage, regardless of the proof that it is not a choice? First we must consider what in marriage is generally considered fundamental. Fundamentally, we all have the right to marry whomever we want. Marriage gives a person the chance to share his or her life, responsibilities, and goals with another consenting individual. It gives us a sense of security and social stability that are fundamental desires we all crave, whether we are gay or straight. By allowing gay marriage to exist, a heterosexual’s marriage is not affected by this at all. By not allowing gay marriage, there will still be the same amount of gay people. Gay marriage simply gives another group of people an outlet for expressing the basic desires of human beings, and making their lives better. It does not undermine the fundamental idea of marriage.
Up until 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in many states because it was thought that interracial marriage would undermine the fundamental idea of marriage. Obviously, an interesting analogy can be drawn from the similarities of interracial and gay marriage. In America, the idea of being able to pursue happiness in the form of marriage is an important and fundamental idea, and gay marriage is just another example of two consenting adults trying to exercise those rights, just like in 1967 with interracial marriage. The Supreme Court, making the case that interracial marriage should be allowed, acknowledged then that marriage was “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” so why all the fuss over gay marriage? What would be the difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage? Both have been considered abnormal at one point, and both involve a particular physical preference. But it is generally accepted today that if you see an interracial couple together, nothing is amiss. We understand that they have simply exercised the right that they have to marry.
A similar argument against gay marriage says that because marriage is for procreation, gays should not have the right to marry. Well, while procreation may be one important aspect in the idea of marriage, it is not the only aspect. We can see this because if I told you that you were not capable of having children, would you still want to get married? You would, because there is something about marriage that transcends simply having children, which are the more fundamental ideas previously mentioned, such as sharing life with another in a stable kind of way. It is obvious that without those qualities of marriage, based on how we think of marriage today, no one would want to get married. It is also obvious that the vast majority of people who get married today do not consider procreation an important aspect of marriage because the birth rate is well known to be below 2.0 children per family. If procreation were a requirement for marriage, a lot of heterosexual couples would not be allowed to marry, and most people consider that argument inhumane. Arguments that homosexuals do not have the right to marry because they cannot procreate are just as inhumane.
Similarly inhumane, and incredibly misleading, is the argument that there is no discrimination toward gay people because they have the same rights to marriage as everyone else, so long as it is a heterosexual marriage. It sounds good because it is technically true that a gay person has the same rights to marry heterosexually, but the nonsensical nature of it becomes apparent when you switch it around and offer the opposite to a heterosexual, that is, the “right” to marry homosexually and not heterosexually. You can tell immediately that it is not really a fair right because a person cannot ever exercise the right to marry whom they want. The argument has the same moral implication as giving a child chocolate ice cream and saying, “you will be happy with chocolate and not vanilla because most kids prefer chocolate.” The argument may sound good if most people prefer chocolate, but what if the kid prefers vanilla? Should you deny the kid what he wants (a harmless alternative) under the assumption that he ought to enjoy the alternative because most everyone else does? Regardless of any other arguments you may have, this simple majority preference argument is morally weak. You need more than a linguistically appealing argument to oppose gay marriage.
Oftentimes the most profound way to oppose homosexuality is to say that it goes against Christianity. But, just as there are Christians who oppose gay marriage, there are other Christians who support it, and the idea of banning something based on a religion that is confused amongst its own members on an issue seems wildly inappropriate. Rev. Canon Thomas H. Conley brings up Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 during his speech, "Some Considerations of Homosexuality and the Episcopal Church.” The common Leviticus interpretation against homosexuality comes from the Holiness Code. He says, “the problem with using the Holiness Code as a prohibition against homosexuality is on shaky ground because we do not accept the rest of the Holiness Code as mandatory for Christians today.” He cites examples of rules in the code that are no longer taken seriously, such as the rule that men should not be allowed to trim their beards, and adulterers should be stoned to death. Furthermore, he says that all references to homosexuality in the New Testament are based on that same code, including the famous Romans 1:27. So how is it possible to use a code in the Bible that is widely ignored and outdated to justify an opposition to gay marriage? It is also interesting to note that none of the Gospels or even Jesus ever condemn homosexuality. He continues, “None of the biblical verses refer to homosexuality as orientation because that did not begin to emerge as an idea until the 19th century. The Bible knows nothing about homosexuality as orientation or as a genetic predisposition” (Conley). He is suggesting that in the Biblical age, homosexuality may have been viewed as unnatural, but only because they did not have the means to understand that it could actually be natural.
Because one interpretation of the Bible, which supports homosexuality, is directly opposed to another interpretation, which condemns homosexuality, and both come from the same Bible, it is obviously not suitable for use as the deciding factor in the argument. The deciding factor will come down to the United States government, and particularly helpful with this issue will be the first amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment asserts that, “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which implies the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is an idea that has been extremely healthy to our country, as it respects the religious beliefs of all people living here. The biggest problem with opposing gay marriage using the Bible is, without any sufficient evidence that homosexuality will actually harm marriage, the Bible alone is not worthy of disregarding the Constitution.
Denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of tradition is also common, the traditional idea always being the definition of “one man and one woman.” Something that is traditional has held for a long time as a habitual, time-honored way of doing things. The traditional marriage idea has in fact changed over the years. It was not until the 16th century that churches sanctified marriages at all, and women did not have a right to property until the 20th century. So the notion of marriage today is somewhat different than it has been in the past. The tradition of marriage has been improved. But even if it had not been improved, tradition alone has no business in the justification of opposing gay marriage, especially as a moral argument. All throughout history there has been murder, theft, and adultery, all bad things, but there are no arguments that call for a continuance of murder because it is a tradition. The claim of tradition as being the reason to oppose gay marriage avoids the real issue at hand, which is, simply, whether or not homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. Definitions and traditions do not in and of themselves imply moral validity. So the definition would change, big deal.
By allowing gay couples into this theoretically broader version of the definition of marriage, you will not weaken straight relationships at all. A marriage is what two people make of it, gay or straight, and obviously, by allowing more people the option to marry, one can see that the institution itself is actually manifestly made stronger. Any fear one might have that gay marriage will threaten straight marriage by radically changing the definition can only be hypothetical and self-induced.
There is an inherent cruelty exhibited toward homosexuals when you deny them their civic rights. Homosexuals, as argued by today’s medical establishment, do not happen upon homosexuality, homosexuality happens upon them, in the exact same way as heterosexuality happens upon heterosexuals. No moral implications can be drawn from a person's sexual preference alone, and, therefore, people with a preference for homosexual relations should not be denied their civic rights to marriage. Concluding is a quote from the Rev. Canon Thomas H. Conley: “I still have the hope that with this issue and others, there will be a day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, when peace and justice will roll down like waters, when we will mount up as eagles, run and not be weary, walk and not faint, and there will be springs flowing in the desert places of our lives.”
Works Cited
APA. “Gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues.” Fact Sheet.
Arey, Norman. “Gay issue group rejection sparks controversy at Berry College” Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Conley, Rev. Thomas H. “Some Considerations of Homosexuality and the Episcopal
Church.” St. Philip.
Miller, Neil. “What Is Marriage For?: A Conversation with E.J. Graff.” World. Mar.
1990.
So I didn't make an "A" on this paper (a "B"), but I figured I would go ahead and post it just so I could at least help defend something I believe in. I spoke with Dr. Cooley about why anyone would even oppose gay marriage to begin with, because in my eyes, the arguments used to oppose gay marriage seem so contrived and self-serving that the only people who could possibly claim them are those who in fact harbor a much deeper seeded hatred and prejudice toward gay people than any real arguments could account for in this matter. He said he suspects it all comes down to fear. It makes sense to me because we sadly aren't used to seeing homosexual relationships as something normal, so it makes people nervous. I bet if it was more socially acceptable then we wouldn't think any more about the normlessness of it than we do with the normlessness of an interracial couple today. I couldn't put the fear idea into my paper because it's not something I can prove, but I do think that it all boils down to that.
The idea of marriage changes throughout history, and the way we perceive marriage today is relatively new. Until the 1500’s, marriage was not even recognized as an official church ceremony. Divorce, contraception, and interracial marriage were for a long time opposed, and women were often considered property of men. We understand now that those ideas were forms of discrimination because the basic rights of marriage were not equal for all people in all situations. Today, marriage is typically viewed as a civic right that every individual has, all the time, to share his or her life, goals, and responsibilities with another consenting adult to achieve the basis human needs of happiness and security. It is easy to see in hindsight that the earlier discrimination of marriage has been improved upon greatly, as now most everyone is allowed his or her rights, but while the notion of marriage we have today has progressed from the discriminatory past, discrimination is still a problem because opponents of gay marriage are presently denying homosexuals their rights based on morally invalid and hypothetical arguments. Opposition to gay marriage is not pro-marriage, but anti-gay, and no arguments against homosexual marriage are any more valid now than the similar arguments from the past were valid then. Gay marriage should not be prevented from two consenting adults, but ought to be encouraged, because being homosexual does not deny a person a moral capacity, nor does it disallow his or her civic rights to marriage.
Some would argue that homosexuals do not have the right to marry because homosexuality is not a naturally occuring thing; the argument being that it is a choice to prefer same-sex attractions. A*** J****, an editor of the Berry College Campus Carrier, said in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "I see [homosexuality] as a perverse deviation chosen by the person. The day that someone can prove to me to my satisfaction that people are born gay is the day that I will reconsider my views” (Arey). A*** J**** is arguing, and he is not the only one, that the preference of homosexuality is “chosen” by the person. That argument stands completely against the intelligent and thoroughly researched claims made by most people in the scientific community today. Here is the official American Psychiatric Association (APA) stance on homosexuality, “All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm the homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health organizations and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal of their own country of legislation that penalized homosexual acts by consenting adults in private.” By and large, the APA, an organization more capable of understanding sexual orientation than A*** J**** and others with his same opinion, is convinced that homosexuality is something that happens to a person, not something that a person happens upon. The APA also goes on to say that it is not appropriate for psychiatrists to attempt to alter the sexuality of a patient (APA). This clearly shows that the APA understands that the preference of homosexuality is not a choice made by homosexuals and should not be treated as such.
That brings us to this question: does homosexual marriage somehow undermine the fundamental idea of marriage, regardless of the proof that it is not a choice? First we must consider what in marriage is generally considered fundamental. Fundamentally, we all have the right to marry whomever we want. Marriage gives a person the chance to share his or her life, responsibilities, and goals with another consenting individual. It gives us a sense of security and social stability that are fundamental desires we all crave, whether we are gay or straight. By allowing gay marriage to exist, a heterosexual’s marriage is not affected by this at all. By not allowing gay marriage, there will still be the same amount of gay people. Gay marriage simply gives another group of people an outlet for expressing the basic desires of human beings, and making their lives better. It does not undermine the fundamental idea of marriage.
Up until 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in many states because it was thought that interracial marriage would undermine the fundamental idea of marriage. Obviously, an interesting analogy can be drawn from the similarities of interracial and gay marriage. In America, the idea of being able to pursue happiness in the form of marriage is an important and fundamental idea, and gay marriage is just another example of two consenting adults trying to exercise those rights, just like in 1967 with interracial marriage. The Supreme Court, making the case that interracial marriage should be allowed, acknowledged then that marriage was “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” so why all the fuss over gay marriage? What would be the difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage? Both have been considered abnormal at one point, and both involve a particular physical preference. But it is generally accepted today that if you see an interracial couple together, nothing is amiss. We understand that they have simply exercised the right that they have to marry.
A similar argument against gay marriage says that because marriage is for procreation, gays should not have the right to marry. Well, while procreation may be one important aspect in the idea of marriage, it is not the only aspect. We can see this because if I told you that you were not capable of having children, would you still want to get married? You would, because there is something about marriage that transcends simply having children, which are the more fundamental ideas previously mentioned, such as sharing life with another in a stable kind of way. It is obvious that without those qualities of marriage, based on how we think of marriage today, no one would want to get married. It is also obvious that the vast majority of people who get married today do not consider procreation an important aspect of marriage because the birth rate is well known to be below 2.0 children per family. If procreation were a requirement for marriage, a lot of heterosexual couples would not be allowed to marry, and most people consider that argument inhumane. Arguments that homosexuals do not have the right to marry because they cannot procreate are just as inhumane.
Similarly inhumane, and incredibly misleading, is the argument that there is no discrimination toward gay people because they have the same rights to marriage as everyone else, so long as it is a heterosexual marriage. It sounds good because it is technically true that a gay person has the same rights to marry heterosexually, but the nonsensical nature of it becomes apparent when you switch it around and offer the opposite to a heterosexual, that is, the “right” to marry homosexually and not heterosexually. You can tell immediately that it is not really a fair right because a person cannot ever exercise the right to marry whom they want. The argument has the same moral implication as giving a child chocolate ice cream and saying, “you will be happy with chocolate and not vanilla because most kids prefer chocolate.” The argument may sound good if most people prefer chocolate, but what if the kid prefers vanilla? Should you deny the kid what he wants (a harmless alternative) under the assumption that he ought to enjoy the alternative because most everyone else does? Regardless of any other arguments you may have, this simple majority preference argument is morally weak. You need more than a linguistically appealing argument to oppose gay marriage.
Oftentimes the most profound way to oppose homosexuality is to say that it goes against Christianity. But, just as there are Christians who oppose gay marriage, there are other Christians who support it, and the idea of banning something based on a religion that is confused amongst its own members on an issue seems wildly inappropriate. Rev. Canon Thomas H. Conley brings up Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 during his speech, "Some Considerations of Homosexuality and the Episcopal Church.” The common Leviticus interpretation against homosexuality comes from the Holiness Code. He says, “the problem with using the Holiness Code as a prohibition against homosexuality is on shaky ground because we do not accept the rest of the Holiness Code as mandatory for Christians today.” He cites examples of rules in the code that are no longer taken seriously, such as the rule that men should not be allowed to trim their beards, and adulterers should be stoned to death. Furthermore, he says that all references to homosexuality in the New Testament are based on that same code, including the famous Romans 1:27. So how is it possible to use a code in the Bible that is widely ignored and outdated to justify an opposition to gay marriage? It is also interesting to note that none of the Gospels or even Jesus ever condemn homosexuality. He continues, “None of the biblical verses refer to homosexuality as orientation because that did not begin to emerge as an idea until the 19th century. The Bible knows nothing about homosexuality as orientation or as a genetic predisposition” (Conley). He is suggesting that in the Biblical age, homosexuality may have been viewed as unnatural, but only because they did not have the means to understand that it could actually be natural.
Because one interpretation of the Bible, which supports homosexuality, is directly opposed to another interpretation, which condemns homosexuality, and both come from the same Bible, it is obviously not suitable for use as the deciding factor in the argument. The deciding factor will come down to the United States government, and particularly helpful with this issue will be the first amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment asserts that, “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which implies the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is an idea that has been extremely healthy to our country, as it respects the religious beliefs of all people living here. The biggest problem with opposing gay marriage using the Bible is, without any sufficient evidence that homosexuality will actually harm marriage, the Bible alone is not worthy of disregarding the Constitution.
Denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of tradition is also common, the traditional idea always being the definition of “one man and one woman.” Something that is traditional has held for a long time as a habitual, time-honored way of doing things. The traditional marriage idea has in fact changed over the years. It was not until the 16th century that churches sanctified marriages at all, and women did not have a right to property until the 20th century. So the notion of marriage today is somewhat different than it has been in the past. The tradition of marriage has been improved. But even if it had not been improved, tradition alone has no business in the justification of opposing gay marriage, especially as a moral argument. All throughout history there has been murder, theft, and adultery, all bad things, but there are no arguments that call for a continuance of murder because it is a tradition. The claim of tradition as being the reason to oppose gay marriage avoids the real issue at hand, which is, simply, whether or not homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. Definitions and traditions do not in and of themselves imply moral validity. So the definition would change, big deal.
By allowing gay couples into this theoretically broader version of the definition of marriage, you will not weaken straight relationships at all. A marriage is what two people make of it, gay or straight, and obviously, by allowing more people the option to marry, one can see that the institution itself is actually manifestly made stronger. Any fear one might have that gay marriage will threaten straight marriage by radically changing the definition can only be hypothetical and self-induced.
There is an inherent cruelty exhibited toward homosexuals when you deny them their civic rights. Homosexuals, as argued by today’s medical establishment, do not happen upon homosexuality, homosexuality happens upon them, in the exact same way as heterosexuality happens upon heterosexuals. No moral implications can be drawn from a person's sexual preference alone, and, therefore, people with a preference for homosexual relations should not be denied their civic rights to marriage. Concluding is a quote from the Rev. Canon Thomas H. Conley: “I still have the hope that with this issue and others, there will be a day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, when peace and justice will roll down like waters, when we will mount up as eagles, run and not be weary, walk and not faint, and there will be springs flowing in the desert places of our lives.”
Works Cited
APA. “Gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues.” Fact Sheet.
Arey, Norman. “Gay issue group rejection sparks controversy at Berry College” Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Conley, Rev. Thomas H. “Some Considerations of Homosexuality and the Episcopal
Church.” St. Philip.
Miller, Neil. “What Is Marriage For?: A Conversation with E.J. Graff.” World. Mar.
1990.
So I didn't make an "A" on this paper (a "B"), but I figured I would go ahead and post it just so I could at least help defend something I believe in. I spoke with Dr. Cooley about why anyone would even oppose gay marriage to begin with, because in my eyes, the arguments used to oppose gay marriage seem so contrived and self-serving that the only people who could possibly claim them are those who in fact harbor a much deeper seeded hatred and prejudice toward gay people than any real arguments could account for in this matter. He said he suspects it all comes down to fear. It makes sense to me because we sadly aren't used to seeing homosexual relationships as something normal, so it makes people nervous. I bet if it was more socially acceptable then we wouldn't think any more about the normlessness of it than we do with the normlessness of an interracial couple today. I couldn't put the fear idea into my paper because it's not something I can prove, but I do think that it all boils down to that.