In Defense of Same Sex Marriage

I want to take a moment and address some of the arguments against same sex marriage. I've argued with different people at different times over some of these arguments, but I thought I'd try and compile as many of them as I can in one place. The inspiration was The Chaplain's great post about the conservative agenda to ultimately devalue marriage by denying same sex marriage.

98% of the world’s population does not recognize same sex marriage, and the 2% that does has only done so very recently.

I fail to see the point. Something isn't right because the majority of the world doesn't agree? Was self governance, free of any overseeing monarch, less right when our Constitution was ratified because the rest of the world didn't agree with that form of government? Is conservation less right today because most of the world doesn't practice it? Is the freedom of speech not right or not worth protecting because the majority of the world doesn't have or protect it?

Marriage (female/male), has persisted across all cultures of the world for thousands of years.

So has arranged marriage. So has polygamy. So what? Also, considering how long heterosexual marriage has persisted, I would think that it will probably continue to do so, regardless of the existence of same sex marriage. How can something that has existed for so long be so fragile? The assertion undermines the argument.

The main advantage of traditional marriage is that it gives a child a mother and a father. Where a child comes from is very important to a child.

As someone who was adopted, I can say that "where I came from" really doesn't mean shit to me, especially compared to knowing that I had a home and a family that loved me. Sadly, there are some kids who weren't adopted and can't say that. The point though is having a loving family, even if that means just one parent, is what's important for a child. There's nothing barring a same sex couple from providing that to a child.

A child needs both a mother and a father

So what, we should outlaw single parenting? Should child services swoop in and take a child away if that child's parents divorce or worse, one dies? Perhaps the surviving parent could have a grace period, say 3-6 months to remarry, before child services takes the child and places it in a foster home?

Statistically, children raised by both biological parents fare better then average then any other arrangement.

Well once again, this ignores adoption. Second, simply assuming that the statistics are true, my guess is a large percentage of single parent homes are, to be polite, economically challenged. In such a situation, there are far more factors involved than simply the absence of a second parent, like for instance a lesser education. Aside from being able to provide a second parent, a same sex couple, statistically earning far more that the median US household income, can greatly increase the chances for success of a child by providing access to a better education, and even a better diet which is very important.

I don’t see much evidence where same sex parenting has benefitted children.

Research shows that families headed by gay and lesbian parents are as healthy as traditional families.

The point of marriage is procreation.

Then should couples be mandated to pass a fertility test prior to being granted a marriage license? Should there be a time period, say within 1-3 years, that a couple must procreate before rendering their marriage null and void? What about elderly couples who marry for companionship and mutual assistance? Should they be denied as well since marriage is simply about procreation? Perhaps these people who can't procreate should be forced to take in the children from the families that divorce or where one parent died and the other failed to remarry within the alloted time?

The majority of Americans are simply not ready for same sex marriage.

• At the time of the Revolution, perhaps a third of the people wanted Independence.

• At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln was still hesitant to outlaw slavery because there was not enough support in the North when that would mean reconciliation was impossible. It was only later, after the North was resolved to see the war through to the end and, more importantly, to ensure the British would not support the South, that he then made the Emancipation Proclamation.

• It took "activist judges" in 1954 to "legislate from the bench" against the majority opinion of the people to rule segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, and federal troops and the National Guard to ensure 9 black students could go to high school in Little Rock in 1957, again, against the overwhelming opinion of the people in AK, and probably beyond.

• "Activist judges" once again, in 1967, made bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional, against the opinion of the people of at least 16 states.

Right is right, whether you're ready for it or not has no bearing.

If gays are allowed to marry, what's next? Polygamy? Bestiality?

Has that happened in countries that have gay marriage? How about in the states that have it? The suggestions are ridiculous. Bestiality doesn't even warrant a response, and polygamy? The arguments against polygamy don't change. Same sex marriage is still a monogamous union.

Same sex marriage will undermine the sanctity of marriage.

First, I would think that having so many people clamoring for it would reinforce it's sanctity, if by sanctity you mean importance. If instead you mean some religious thing, I wasn't aware the government was supposed to play a role in enforcing religious beliefs on everyone. Now I know that, for instance, when I discover a little known food or band and then later everyone finds out and gets into them, I feel a bit sad, but that's a selfish sentiment, isn't it? I mean, the food doesn't taste different because others are eating it too, does it? Does a song sound any different on your iPod if 10 million other people have it on their iPod? The sanctity, the value and importance of something is not diminished by allowing more people access to it. Quite the contrary, it increases it.

If same-sex marriage became the norm in our society, we would get less traditional marriage.

I would think such a high divorce rate in America today does more to dissuade people from getting married than allowing more people who want to get married do so.

Gay sex is immoral and repulsive. I don't want my children exposed to that and told that's ok.

And teaching children it's ok to deny equal rights to people they personally find repulsive is fine? Teaching hatred is just fine? I have to tell you, I find hatred, violence and ignorance far worse things to have children exposed to. Furthermore, I personally find it repulsive to imagine most people I meet having sex. Most couples I see aren't that pretty but hey, who am I to deny them happiness?

Well gay sex is unnatural.

So are eyeglasses, polyester, vitamin supplements, and artificial insemination. Should we outlaw those, too?

Kids raised by gay couples will end up gay.

Yes, like how kids raised by straight couples always end up straight.

Same sex marriage will change the foundation of society.

I think the internet has had a more profound effect on changing society than same sex marriage will, but so what? Americans can't adapt? Less than a hundred years ago, travel by automobile was pretty scarce and airplane travel? Forget about it. Did we manage to adapt to those changes? Is change always bad? I think truly providing equal rights is the kind of foundational change worth embracing. The ideas of separate but equal, of some or more equal than others, and of course that your value, your "specialness" must come at the expense of others are repugnant and make for a piss poor foundation for society.