Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage

Opposition to gay marriage is something I simply do not understand. That's it - simple. I understand opposition to pacifism, I understand support of abortion, of euthanasia, of capitalism... Generally I do have some idea of the motivating factors behind ideological stances opposite to my own. But on same-sex marriage... no.

This issue is not something I talk about very often, nor is it a major issue for me (and indeed, many of my gay friends have even expressed to me that they do not consider it particularly important). Despite this, I still feel as if those who oppose the allowance of same-sex marriages just... have nothing on which to stand.

If we start with religious ideals, particularly "God's condemnation of homosexuality," you quickly realize that many attitudes reflected in the Bible are not at all consistent with what today's Christians (even the most conservative) should or do believe. Additionally, it's obvious that such beliefs are not legislated. I would talk more about such things if prompted with argument, but I definitely do not feel the need.

When you talk about "the institution of marriage," this too has changed throughout history to reflect cultural values, although perhaps more accurately, (to the chagrin of all y'all authoritarian traditionalists out there), it has changed to reflect fewer and fewer cultural values. Put a more positive way: It has changed to allow us more freedom.

I like taking divorce as the classic example through all of this. Jesus clearly spoke out against divorce, God is clearly against it, and in the past laws have reflected these and similar cultural values. Now, as the liberty of attaining a divorce has been expanded, we see cultural changes have occurred. This leads to that most amazing and wondrous argument of them all - the SLIPPERY SLOPE.

There will be cultural changes in America if gay marriage is accepted by many more states and by the country's populace as a whole. Indeed, changes have already occurred, perhaps due to the actions of other nations, or the wellspring of the homosexual rights movement itself (whatever that may be). "The slippery slope" is real; it's just that we're not falling off a cliff, and we're not falling.

I get the idea that some opponents of same-sex marriage feel (or just say) that the legalization of this policy will devalue their own marriages. Here are a few thoughts I had:

How did landowners feel about politics when others were allowed to be in government?
How did sharecroppers feel about their occupation when slaves were freed?
How did men think about the integrity of American suffrage in 1921?
What'd people think of the Birmingham bus system after the Civil Rights Act?
Make no mistake - I do have moral absolutes. It's just that none of them have to do with cultural institutions on love and human relationships. When you think about those things, it just leaves me wondering: What could opponents of same-sex marriage possibly be thinking?


  1. Anonymous02 May, 2009

    Were a civil union made equal to marriage, I'd be alright. However when it's still called marriage, I take issue. It's not the same thing. >.>

  2. Have you heard of the phrase "separate but equal?" Establishing different institutions for different kinds of people is not something I feel good about.

  3. Anonymous04 May, 2009

    I don't feel grand about it, but marriage was originally thought of in this country in the same context that christianity does. As long as that is the primary idea of it, I don't believe that a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be called marriage.

  4. But... why NOT? What's so wrong with it...? Marriage, civil union... the same thing happens basically, yeah? So why do people get so fired up when gay people ask for marriage? I don't think it matters, let them get married! Love is love.

  5. Anonymous05 May, 2009

    What's in a name? That which we call marriage by any other name would smell as sweet. So unless there's something about the word "marriage" compared to civil union, I see no ordeal once/if they raise the rights of those with a civil union to that of a married couple.

  6. Churches will still grant marriages based on their own beliefs. Baptists are not going to be forced to consecrate gays here.

    Admitting that homosexual marriages should be recognized by the state is admitting that marriage is a civil institution - which it is. Further, it is admitting that the state should not discriminate against others in its institutions, and it cannot do this by creating segregated institutions, regardless of how "equal" they might be.

  7. Petersgayfriend11 May, 2009

    Some people don't believe it should be a civil institution and that the civil movement is heading in the wrong way. Don't include gay marriage in law, remove all marriage from law. Then nobody has to involve the government and we can all take that libertarian stance and feel free.


Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment!