Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

Every article I’ve read supporting Prop 8 and opposing same-gender marriage can be reduced to some “objective” set of “points” which serve as a very, very thin mask for the religious, moral arguments really being offered up.

People don’t seem to want to admit that they adhere to the moral, religious arguments, and so they couch them as pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-secular arguments about politics and society, rather than be honest about the fact that they really just don’t think that same-gender relationships can ever possibly live up to the high moral plane upon which they place heterosexual relationships.

But of course, it’s impossible to have a genuine dialogue with people who can’t admit that the arguments they’re offering up are not actually the reason they’re supporting anti-equality legislation.

Just be honest, people! Offer up a debate on the issues as you really see them, instead of couching them in the language of secular intellectualism.

Let’s look at these popular “points” of discussion:

1) Gay people can’t procreate, so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

What it really means: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: This country has never required applicants for marriage to be fertile or to have children. The elderly can marry. The infertile can marry. People who choose not to have children can marry. People who have had tubes tied can marry. Married couples have a constitutionally-protected right to choose to use birth-control even while they are married. And yet gay people have babies every day, but can’t get married. And hey, guess what? Adoption doesn’t require procreative ability.

2) Recognizing gay relationships will lead to recognizing incest, polygamy, or even bestiality.

What it really means: God thinks gay sex is in the same moral category as incest, polygamy, or bestiality.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: Well, aside from the fact that incest is already legal in 26 states (you can marry your first cousin!), animals are not adults and cannot sign a contract, and polygamy is double-dipping? A marriage takes two people and makes them a single legal entity. You can’t do that if you’re already a single legal entity with somebody else. It’s a legal impossibility that has nothing to do with *couples*, which the law recognizes. If the law allowed a man to have two wives, *then* we might talk about whether a woman can have two wives too. Until then, the polygamy debate is a moot point. The great irony of course is that if only some states allow same-gender marriage but not others, then polygamy WILL occur. Requiring 50-state recognition is the only way to *prevent* polygamy.

3) Denying the right for gay people to marry is no different from denying the right for an adult to marry a child.

What it really means: Gay sex is morally equivalent to pedophilia and should be denied in the same way.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage:

A) A CHILD CANNOT SIGN A MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Get with it, people!

B) Actually, that’s not true. In most states a child CAN get married, with a court order and/or parental permission; and

C) If an adult-minor couple (such as Sarah Palin’s daughter and her boyfriend) REALLY, REALLY want to get married and can’t get parental permission, they have the option of waiting until the minor is 18 years old, and THEN they can get married. A gay couple does not have that same option.

D) Let’s stop for a second and get something straight here, okay? (No pun intended).

There is virtually NO other situation in which two unmarried adults who are legally allowed to have sex with each other are NOT allowed to get married.

Incest (sex between close relatives) is ILLEGAL. So the argument that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage is moot, because there is a crime being committed by virtue of the fact that these two people are having sex in the first place. Marriage does not absolve them of the crime.

Sex between adults and minors is ILLEGAL. There is a crime being committed by virtue of the fact that they are having sex – therefore, marriage is out of the question, because the relationship itself is illegal. Marriage does not negate the fact that a crime is being committed – except in Utah. (Nah, I’m sure there are other states besides Utah where a 40 year old can marry a 16 year old and legally have sex with her. But that is a WHOLE OTHER moral argument.)

Sex between people and animals is ILLEGAL. There is a crime being committed by virtue of the fact that they are having sex – therefore marriage is out of the question, because the relationship itself is illegal.

Sex between two unmarried adults of the same gender is NOT illegal. No crime is committed based on their relationship. And yet they are barred from getting married on the grounds that their relationship is identical to that in which a crime IS committed.

How is this logical?

Well, it’s not. In fact, MOST anti-gay laws are grounded in the notion that you can legally treat gay people as presumed criminals because their sexual activities are against the law. Job discrimination, housing discrimination, and marriage discrimination all stem from the outdated view that gay sex is not only immoral, but illegal. But guess what? That’s not the case. There is no longer any legal grounds for treating gay people like criminals. And yet it continues.

4) Gay people have the same rights as straight people – to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

What it really means: “Gay” is a disease that can be cured. It’s not an identity; it’s a behavior. Let gay people turn straight if they want to be married.

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: This one should speak for itself. If you’re willing to make the argument that I should have to subject myself to rape (I would never consent to heterosexual sex) just so I can have access to the institution of marriage, then I have nothing to say to you.

Nobody should ever have to make that choice; that’s what it means to live in a free society.

The argument in Loving v. Virginia was not that being black was somehow an immutable characteristic and that’s why they allowed the marriage. The woman in that case had a choice too. She could have left her husband and found a black man to marry so she could have legal marital recognition. But she didn’t love a black man. She loved her husband. The court acknowledged this ridiculous, offensive argument, but found it to be distasteful and fallacious. Having the “same” rights does not necessarily mean having “equal” rights. A person in a wheelchair has just as much right to vote as somebody who can walk, but if all the polling stations are upstairs, how can you say there is “equality” based on the “same” rights? The law doesn’t have to treat you “the same” in order to treat you “equally.”

In any event, being gay is not a “choice,” not that this should matter, and it’s not an “illness” to be “treated.” Religious membership is a choice, and you’re not banned from marriage because of it. (well, maybe you are by your religion – but not by the government!)

If you believe it’s a choice or some sort of reflection of life experiences? Let’s have a talk some time. Ask me how old I was the first time I liked a girl.

5) But if we allow gay marriage, then we won’t be able to discriminate against gay couples! (Oh noes!)

What it really means: But if we allow gay marriage, then we won’t be able to discriminate against gay couples! (Oh noes!)

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage: Trust me – you’ll be able to discriminate. You’ll still be able to deny us religious recognition. You’ll still manage to keep us out of your congregations. You’ll still hate us even while you tell us you love us but hate our sin. The LAW, however, CANNOT discriminate like that. If you want your religious freedom, then you need to allow me my religious freedom, and that includes the right to have my religious marriage accorded legal rights.

6) Domestic partnerships are the same as marriage, legally speaking.

What it really means: Either “Separate can be equal,” or “You aren’t equal, so why should you get equal access? And by the way, give us time and we’ll go after domestic partnership rights too.”

Why it’s not a valid argument against civil marriage:

A) No, separate is not equal.

B) Even if separate were equal, domestic partnership is not the same as marriage. No husband is taxed on his wife’s and children’s health insurance benefits. Domestic partners ARE. There are a million reasons why these are completely unequal institutions, taxation being only one of them.

C) We already HAVE two separate institutions of unions, and you can’t seem to get your head around that. What makes us think that in another ten years you won’t say, “Domestic partnership is marriage! Protect the sanctity of domestic partnership!”? Civil marriage was supposed to be the secular equivalent of marriage. Somewhere along the way, you guys conflated it, and now we’re fighting over creation of a THIRD institution to do what the SECOND one was supposed to accomplish.

D) The organizations that instituted Proposition 8 have proven time and time again that they are not willing to stop at marriage. They have sued in countless states to eliminate domestic partnership, they have instituted boycotts against companies that give domestic partnership benefits, and they have circulated ballot petitions to eliminate domestic partnership in California. Why on EARTH would we believe they will stop fighting now that they’ve tasted blood?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.