How to win the gay marriage debate

[truhavoc]

My state of Ohio recently passed the most far reaching legislation “protecting the institution of marriage” ever in the history of the United States. It struck me recently how many people, at least according to polls, support legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I was utterly shocked how many people out there supported what I feel to be a bigoted, hatemongering ideal which only sets back the equal rights movement. This caused great inner strife, I asked friend after friend, and they held similar views it drew me to wonder were the polls wrong? Heaven forbid, the very thing the media relies on for absolutely everything, the polls just could NOT be wrong. So dismissing the ideal of some conspiracy by those who operate polls (that means you Zogby), I decided to dive deeper to find the root of this evil I perceived.

I feel that the problem here is an equal rights issue which some either do not understand, or have been swayed by religious teachings. The basis of my understanding is that homosexuals are not “deviants”, they do not come into this world and make the conscious decision to spite us all by sleeping with the same sex. I do not feel that it is a handicap, for there are many examples of this being perfectly normal behavior in the animal world. Case in point, our closest relatives on the genetic level are the Bonobo, they are 97% the same on the genetic level as Homo sapiens. In common practice, all Bonobo display at least bi-sexual tendencies, and female bonobo’s in captivity are know to have a “lesbian” encounter every several minutes. There is a written history of homosexual encounters happening throughout our history, in Greek and Roman civilization it was especially commonplace. To say that we are now more “civilized” and are not drawn by this so called devilish desires that affected the past would be absurd. I am not suggesting that we should all soul search and discover our own homosexual desires, but they are most certainly there on some level, no matter how oppressed.

Point being, homosexuality is not something that should be deemed as less than normal, and undeserving of equal protection under the law. Conservatives play this matter to be one of “protecting the institution of marriage”, my question to them is from what? I fail to see how two loving individuals committing themselves to each other for better or for worse is going to do harm to the institution of marriage, in the face of heterosexual marriages like that of Britney Spears. The common reply to such an assertion is, “Well, what’s next?” Obviously this is implying that those who are homosexual are on the same level as people who have intercourse with animals, or want to rape children, or something of the like. This should never be allowed to reach this answer, democrats should stand up and make sure those that use this line are called exactly what they are, ignorant. The other common response is a reliance on religious scripture which I will address later on. The problem constantly stated is that of redefining marriage, thus diminishing the institution itself. According to Merriam-Webster Online:



1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>



The argument would be something like if in addition to the above definition it said something along the lines of “a union between those of the same race”. A definition is only the reflection of what people know something as. Possibly in the past the definition for the term “Earth” was: The flat surface on which we live on, the geographic center of the universe. This being the definition for the term “Earth” only reflects what is known about the object, thus how could something like homosexual marriage be included in the definition of marriage when it has yet to be practiced, and part of the common idea of marriage. The term slavery could have been defined using African Americans, but in no way does this mean that slavery intrinsically implies African Americans. The reasoning used via this path is illogical, and conservatives should not be able to get away with this. Also much needs to be said about the way Christian religion has shaped this debate over the years. Terry Eastland of Crosswalk.com writes:

“This tells us Americans still believe marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman-not between two people of the same sex. And it reveals the enduring influence of the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. As one survey respondent said, homosexual marriage would be "against the word of God." On the critical issue of "gay marriage," it's apparent that the nation hasn't lost its moral compass. “

What about homosexual marriage is exactly “against the word of God”? First there are qualifiers you have to know in order to frame the words of the Bible in the correct context. First off, words such as “homosexual” and “sodomy” did not exist at the time the Bible was written, those words were added into the translation at a later time. At the first glance of any Bible passage which includes either of these words it should automatically throw up a red flag, for instance the term “homosexuality” was not coined until the late 19th century. Any passage that sounds like the following, “"Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" (The Living Bible, Leviticus 18:22) should automatically be taken with a grain of salt, for it is likely to be the product of years of translation mostly for economic gains. Living in 16th century Europe how favorable do you think the public would be towards your translation if you didn’t explicitly say something forbidding homosexuality, especially after centuries of translations from the powers that be within the church. There are numerous different translations of the passage above from its original Hebrew literally translated as “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" This has many different contexts which can be viewed here http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm.

If homosexual marriage is made into an election year subject I believe that if framed in the correct context, and without playing politics with the subject it can be one that democrats can lead with, and win with. The issue should not be what conservatives see as damaging the institution of marriage, but it should be seen as depriving equally deserved Americans of their equal rights under their law. It should not be seen as going against the word of God, but in the very least as respecting the teachings of Jesus Christ (not once in scripture does Jesus mention homosexuality). It should be viewed like it is, as a product of past prejudices which have no place in the modern world. The context of the debate suggests that homosexual relationships are against the nature of humanity because of the inability to procreate. There are many children in the world that are given up for adoption and could use a stable home. Nothing suggests that a homosexual partnership could not raise a child any more or less successfully than a heterosexual couple. I end with a letter from then Senator Cornyn, who talks about interracial marriage:

“nly one kind of relationship has received such historic and multicultural elevated status in law, culture, and morality: the traditional marital union of two people of the same race. That is not because other kinds of relationships are unimportant, but rather because stable unions of two people of the same race are the strongest foundation mankind has ever known for ensuring the healthy upbringing of children. A wealth of social science research and data attest to this fact.



It does not disparage other kinds of relationships for society to recognize that children are raised best when they are raised by two people of the same race. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine an institution that has enjoyed such overwhelming consensus as traditional marriage. The traditional institution of marriage has existed as such throughout human history, across numerous and diverse cultures, countries, and civilizations as well as party lines, and in the laws, judicial precedents, traditions, and historical practices of all [] states.”

As someone who is engaged to marry a girl born in India, this argument especially hits home. All Americans deserve equal rights free from the oppression of others. I think the founding fathers are turning over in their graves as we speak, the fundamental premise of our republic is the protection of the minority. In this debate the interests of a powerful sect of our society is trying to infringe on the rights of the minority homosexual population. The democratic candidates need to speak up, and support equal rights for this minority, and frame it in the way which will look badly on the republican party for years to come.

[Fargin Ice Hole]

1. Within a week of the publicity of these gay marriages.......

Oregon passed 3 laws making a gay marriage null/void. It's a mad world... I'd bet the majority of these lawmakers still call gay males as cornholers.

[MsUnderstood]

2. Thank you

I wanted to make a silly comment about how lucky the lesbian monkeys were but thought you deserved some acknowledgement for the thought you put into this article.

I found the irony in your last paragraph especially titilating
"I think the founding fathers are turning over in their graves as we speak, the fundamental premise of our republic is the protection of the minority."

Wow! How many anti-gay marriage folks would recognize that the founding fathers would be OKAY with giving minorities their equal rights? Nice call.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Senator Cornyn was wrong then and so is everyone who

claims that 'marriage has existed as such throughout human history....". For a powerful refutation of this lame excuse see the link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

I keep asking which 'traditional' marriage are you talking about? I truly believe (as a single person with no desire to enter into either a heterosexual or homosexual marriage) that those in opposition to following the Consitution (all citizens holding equal rights)are afraid that granting the financial benefits of marriage to others might somehow cost them 'power and prestige'.

[Xanth]

4. I accept your position and promise to way it carefully.

I can see your passion Truhavoc. The historians article was an interesting read too. I am a married man, married to a wonderful woman. I don't understand the issue of equal rights for gays. I believe you have the same rights I do under the constitution. I don't believe that marriage is a right, it's privilege.

I don't have a right to pick up someone off the street and marry them without their consent. I had to build a relationship and eventually build up the courage to ask for her hand in marriage. It was a privilege to me that she said yes. I did not marry her for any other benefit, but to enhance my life with a person I love. If you want to marry your partner for any other reason than a loving, fulfilling relationship you shouldn't marry.

I can understand your point if you want recognition. I would want to be recognized to. I have a younger sister who is going through the challenge of accepting herself as a gay woman. She struggles with it daily. Although I disagree with that lifestyle I still love her.

I was brought up believing that marriage is between one man and one woman. I don't think the terminology of marriage should be changed because a minority of people are upset. This country was founded on biblical principles and has prospered because of it. I really think you are looking for recognition like my sister.

I accept you.

[truhavoc]

5. Thank you for the promise

of weighing my position.

I think you somewhat misunderstood my posting, and think possibly you didn't read it all the way through.

I am very passionate on this debate, more so than probably a lot of homosexuals. I too am about to be married to a wonderful woman in a few months and I fully realize the pure magic of the commitment. Here is most likely my point of dissent, I do not see why a sect of people should be forbidden from experiencing this wonderful event.

You said, "I don't have a right to pick up someone off the street and marry them without their consent. I had to build a relationship and eventually build up the courage to ask for her hand in marriage. It was a privilege to me that she said yes. I did not marry her for any other benefit, but to enhance my life with a person I love. If you want to marry your partner for any other reason than a loving, fulfilling relationship you shouldn't marry."

I agree completely, there are many of those out there that do not truly heed the words "till death do us part", I think what they hear sometimes is "till life gets too rough". Going along with this I feel there are many homosexuals who would love to go through this entire process, commit and share their love with that one special person, and live forever with them just like you and me, but they are forbidden from doing so. What makes their love any less strong? What makes their dedication any less? Why should a equally committed homosexual couple not have even basic courtesies like hospital visitation rights?

The sense I get from you that the call for marriage rights for the homosexual community is only for recognition. This surely is not the case in a lot of situations, and those trying to get recognition through marriage should be looked at in the same light as those such as Britney Spears who do the same thing. I am sure your sister appreciates your acceptance of her, and I think this puts you in a unique position to view this debate. I hope that being around your sister has made you realize that she did not choose to be gay, she was born that way, it is not behavior of choice. When in a few years she falls in love with someone and shares the same sort of relationship that you have with your wife, think about what makes her less deserving of the benefits of marriage. What makes her less deserving of sharing that commitment that you have shared? What makes her less of a citizen, almost less than human in the views of some?

[Xanth]

6. I am in a unique position for sure.

And I am having to realize the reality of having a gay family member. It was easy to accept because she is family, but at first I felt it was a phase. She is still young and has always been around girls. She played softball for the longest time. This being the case I felt she felt most comfortable around girls than boys. My step dad, her dad was also very strict with her. I felt this played a part too.

This is still all new to me since I just found this out in the last year. I am really still just getting to know her. Since I am her older brother and was not at the house most of the time with her, our quality time is very limited. She had a demanding softball schedule and I was in another city living my life.

I hope to learn more about myself and hers as our lives go on. I truly hope she finds a loving mate to share with. I also hope she learns that her sexual lifestyle is what she does and not who she is.

Your right most people quit when it gets rough. I don't know why my parents really divorced. Alot of the people I know have been divorced. It frustrates me. I remember when I was dating I could leave if things didn't work out. Being married is a whole new realm of living. There are different commitments and ones more binding. I know the divorce rate in America is very high for heterosexual couples. Do you really want to be a part of that statistic for gay marriages?

I didn't realize that something as simple as hospital visitation rights were not allowed for homosexuals. On the surface that doesn't make any sense. It seems that has more to do with the family of the individual not accepting the gay lifestyle.

Truhavoc thank you for sharing with me. I really have never talked to anyone else about this besides my wife and my oldest sister.