Irrational Arguments Against Gay Marriage
The religious right is in a tizzy due to this week's ruling in California which stated "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners."
While opponents of same sex marriage (SSM) claim to have rational reasons for banning it, the arguments are irrational because none of them connect to the stated goals:
1) "The institution of marriage will be destroyed." No, it won't. There is no logical reason to believe that heterosexuals will get divorced or stop marrying because of legal SSM.
"But look at Scandinavia!" Marriage rates may be dropping there, but no one has rationally explained how this is caused by SSM.
2) "Every child deserves a mother and father." True, but SSM would not threaten this goal. In fact, it may further it. Here's why:
Due to the widely held beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, many people who are natually lesbian and gay attempt to "cure" themsleves by marrying (or just having sex with) the opposite sex. If they have children in these marriages and later divorce to enter same sex marriages that are more appropriate for them, then the children may spend raised at least part of the time in a same-sex led household.
On the other hand, is SSM is legalized and the stigma against them is removed, then gays and lesbians won't attempt to cure themselves with insincere hetersexual relationships. The long-term result is FEWER children in same-sex led households and a HIGHER percentage of children with mothers and fathers.
Curiously opponents of SSM do not advocate banning divorce for parents with children, despite the fact that it would prevent children from being separated from their mother and father.
3) "There is no tradition of SSM." So what? There was a tradition of slavery for a long time, but there were some very rational reasons for letting that tradition die, so that's what we did. There is also no tradition of the Internet or email, but that doesn't make them immoral.
The argument that is rational for some people is "My religion teaches against it." If your religion prohibits SSM, then you don't have to enter one. But this country was founded on the value that the government should not impose the views of a religion on those who don't practice it.
While opponents of same sex marriage (SSM) claim to have rational reasons for banning it, the arguments are irrational because none of them connect to the stated goals:
1) "The institution of marriage will be destroyed." No, it won't. There is no logical reason to believe that heterosexuals will get divorced or stop marrying because of legal SSM.
"But look at Scandinavia!" Marriage rates may be dropping there, but no one has rationally explained how this is caused by SSM.
2) "Every child deserves a mother and father." True, but SSM would not threaten this goal. In fact, it may further it. Here's why:
Due to the widely held beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, many people who are natually lesbian and gay attempt to "cure" themsleves by marrying (or just having sex with) the opposite sex. If they have children in these marriages and later divorce to enter same sex marriages that are more appropriate for them, then the children may spend raised at least part of the time in a same-sex led household.
On the other hand, is SSM is legalized and the stigma against them is removed, then gays and lesbians won't attempt to cure themselves with insincere hetersexual relationships. The long-term result is FEWER children in same-sex led households and a HIGHER percentage of children with mothers and fathers.
Curiously opponents of SSM do not advocate banning divorce for parents with children, despite the fact that it would prevent children from being separated from their mother and father.
3) "There is no tradition of SSM." So what? There was a tradition of slavery for a long time, but there were some very rational reasons for letting that tradition die, so that's what we did. There is also no tradition of the Internet or email, but that doesn't make them immoral.
The argument that is rational for some people is "My religion teaches against it." If your religion prohibits SSM, then you don't have to enter one. But this country was founded on the value that the government should not impose the views of a religion on those who don't practice it.
posted by Dancar | 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home