Weekly Poll: What Effect Would Gay Marriage Have?
There is a lot of debate about the legalization of gay marriage. Many see it as a necessary condition for gays having equal rights while others treat it as a sign of the decline of civilization. Would gay marriage really have any great impact on society, positive or negative? That seems unlikely to me — despite the loud cries of horror and doom from the Christian Right, there is no good reason to think that legalized gay marriage would have much of any impact, much less a horribly negative one.
If the Christian Right were to be believed, legalized gay marriage might usher in the Apocalypse, but then again the Christian Right so often uses apocalyptic terms it's difficult to take them very seriously. Similarly grave forecasts were made about ending slavery, desegregation, interracial marriage, letting women vote, etc. Somehow, the Earth has managed to keep spinning and the sun hasn't exploded. Why imagine that gay marriage is any different?
The Christian Right believes that marriage is a religious rather than a secular or civil institution. They believe that allowing gays to marry is like forcing churches to accept gays or women as priests — a form of state intrusion on church matters. From such a perspective it's understandable that they would be so upset, but their position is based on a foundation of empty air. Marriage is a religious institution within churches, but it is also a civil institution in society generally.
Civil, secular government thus as the right, the authority, and the need to regulate it — but not regulate it solely for the benefit of Christians. Marriage is an institution that exists for all citizens, not just those with a particular religious ideology or even a particular sexual orientation. Efforts to get civil government to define marriage according to Christian concepts and dogma is really an attempt to get civil government to privilege Christians and Christianity above everyone else.
To be fair, defenders of gay marriage don’t take a parallel and opposite position from the Christian Right. They argue that gay marriage is necessary for gays to be fully equal, but they don't try to argue that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to widespread improvement of all society. It would positively benefit a few people in a direct and major way, then positively benefit communities and some families in small, indirect ways. The major benefit from legalized gay marriage would simply be an end to a significant form of official discrimination, which is no small achievement.
Comments
>To be fair, defenders of gay marriage don’t take a parallel and opposite position from the Christian Right. They argue that gay marriage is necessary for gays to be fully equal, but they don’t try to argue that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to widespread improvement of all society.
Correct. It would serve to legitimize gay relationships for those couples who want to take advantage of it. But I can’t see how the sky would fall in due to a gay couple getting married.
I just don’t see it as my job to stop people from getting married. I don’t care who gets married. Maybe I’m extreme, but I saw a program about an estranged brother and sister who actually got married, I think they didn’t disclose their relation–so maybe it’s not a “legal” marriage in that regard? But, personally, I really don’t care if they get married or not. I don’t have to live with them. So, how is it my business? I think the number of siblings in the world with those sorts of feelings for one another is so rare it would hardly impact the greater population. And I seriously doubt I or anyone else would suddenly sprout romantic feelings for our brothers/sisters if they legalized sibling marriage. So, what if a handful of closely related couples marries? Why should I care or consider it my business? What are they hurting? I wouldn’t do it–but they’re not asking me to. They’re not imposing on me–why should I feel compelled to impose on them?
I voted the first one, but we’d probably see more foaming at the mouth from the religious right. After all, if they couldn’t stop this, it wouldn’t mean (to them, anyway) that they’re wrong, just that they need to try even harder.
What Effect Would Gay Marriage Have?
More gay divorces.
This is another misguided attempt to deny science by the Christian Right. They think that being gay is a choice like being a Theist or being an Atheist. They do not see homosexuality as a natural development . They are afraid that if they sanction homosexuality they will some day wake up Gay, or their children will decide to be Gay. That is why they get so upset when they find out one of them is Gay. Frankly I do not see Gay marriage as a problem to society.
DaveQ:
The argument about choice is failing with apologists. Many young people aren’t accepting it. The new apologetic that is replacing it says that people are born gay–but it’s a test from god. So, it’s like being born with alcoholic propensities–where it’s best not to give in to the bio urges.
What I find funny is that whether it’s a choice or not is really irrelevant. It’s relevant to Xians only in that they prefer to believe god wouldn’t create someone with bio tendencies toward homosexuality–because that goes against the biggest prior apologetic: It’s unnatural (and god wouldn’t make you gay if being gay were an abomination). But now they’re pinpointing the behavior and not the desire: You may feel these urges–but giving in is a sin.
Meanwhile, whether it’s a choice or not, I’ve never heard any reasons why it’s a problem EXCEPT “the Bible says so.” The HIV argument falls flat in that the largest group contracting HIV is heterosexual women; and the group lest likely to sexually contract or transmit the disease are lesbians.
So, whether a person chooses to be gay and act on gay impulses or not–no Xian has ever illustrated to me how that’s any of their business if the person in question isn’t a Xian as well. If this is not your “Brother in Christ”–how is what he does your business? He’s not an adherent to your religion or your religious practices–so why are you suprised he’s not doing what your Bible says? And why is it a problem that nonXians of any leaning AREN’T doing what your Bible says? Since when have nonXians been compelled to follow Bible teachings?
THAT’S the problem.
Actually, I do think that our society as a whole would be helped by legalizing so-called “gay marriage” which in my mind is really “marriage equality”, just as I believe that ending racism or sexism truly does benefit white people and men. Living in a society where there is injustice is not good for anyone, IMHO, so ending such injustices helps us all.
LisaG:
Right on, with that. It’s not unlike Church State separation. When a church pushes for state interaction–and pushing it’s religious agenda via the government–they don’t see how that unfairly impacts the society. They think that since it’s “their” agenda, it’s all good; but in reality, they’re busting barriers that “one day can and will be used against them…” in our government and society. What happens when their religion evolves (as it does and will), and they’re still encumbered by their antiquated religious rules? What happens when religious ideology is thrust on them via government vehicles, and theirs is no longer the dominant relgion? They could quickly find themselves on the wrong end of their own persecution stick. But they don’t see that–so long as they’re the ones in power.
Exactly as you’re pointing out–_equity_ benefits _everyone_. Imbalance harms us all–even if it’s on my side at the moment. That momentum is bound to swing back–and then I better look out!
One less divide and control stunt for the right-wing predator filth
Austin,
I have a problem with your definition of marriage. I quite agree that it is an institution and that all citizens have a “right” to get married.
I would add that the “central government” decides how to define “marriage” and that definition should apply to everyone in the country.
But to allow some of its citizens to re-define marriage is not wise, in my opinion. Some people might have a polygamist view. Who decides then?
This is not a religious matter; strictly a legal one. Same sex unions are certainly normal, but to redefine “marriage” as it is understood can lead to loopholes in the future. This is a recent issue and maybe a different term is best suited to define same sex ‘marriages’.
Rob
Except that there is nothing in the definition of “marriage” which necessarily excludes same-sex couples.
Why? Should we have found a different term for interracial marraiges?
There is a fact that gay-marriage-denying religious organizations, and doubtless also the entire wedding industry, wish to keep quiet: church buildings, and their associated personnel and religious rites, are superfluous to the civil affirmation of de facto marriage. Judges can sign marriage licenses quite effectively, and without benefit of clergy, thank you very much.
To the extent that the de facto marriages of gay (or non-gay) couples can be licensed and legally registered by officials of civil government, (volume up) churches are not needed for any but merely ceremonial marriage purposes. (Reset volume.)
Indeed, the very existence of gay civil marriage, without church approval and participation, serves to highlight that the only legal status to which churches legitimately might lay claim is that of mere social clubs that nurture and affirm religious mythologies. (Oh, that hurts!)
That is the big secret, which non-religious people should advertise, without mincing words.
There is a major problem with the idea of homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) being “natural” but some kind of “animal urge” that we must fight, or be commiting a sin. It has been pretty effectively show that homosexual behavior is quite common in nature. There are even species of lizards that have no males, yet have mating between monogamous pairs of females. The “natural” vs. “unnatural” arguement can be dispensed with. The new twist, as tracieh explains, that it is an urge we must resist, is a more subtle problem. Every individual animal (including us - humans are no less animals than whiptail lizards) is born with a unique set of instincts, including a unique set of triggers for sexual drives. More important, the strength of these drives are also individual. Most humans, if they are forced to be celibate for a great length of time, will suffer from mild depression. A smaller number of people will hardly notice. An equally small number of people can suffer very sever depression and even psychotic behavior. This is why some people are ideally suited for the priesthood (at least in terms of maintaining the oath of celibacy), most people find it very challenging, and some people turn into rapists. You can’t tell who has what level of sexual drive by looking at them, and people really only discover this in themselves by trial and error. Though this hasn’t been studied very well, doubtless this works the same for homosexuality. People who are instinctively gay would get no satisfaction of their instincts from heterosexuality, and would suffer mental health consequences concommitant with their level of drive. Therefore, some people who have homosexual instincts will be able to resist, others will literally lose their minds.
Just a quick comment on how equality helps everyone. It doesn’t. It helps everyone but those who have the real power. Those who are on top of a nation do not want competition. John mentioned “divide and control stunts” (comment #8) and is right on the nose. All the differences between us that become a source of prejudice (race, gender, religion, age, ethnicity, whatever) keep the masses from recognizing their real enemies - their leaders (not the elected ones, the 400 rich and powerful families that control this country - and similar situations elsewhere). Equality benefits millions at a cost to the powers that be.