Gay Activists' Main Arguments in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
Basing their conclusions largely on the unquestioned acceptance of three key unspoken presuppositions, gay activists employ the following public arguments in their attempt to promote the idea of legal recognition for same-sex "marriages":1) Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are being "discriminated against" when their unions are denied marriage recognition.
This is not the first instance of government interference in a couple's choice to marry. Less than thirty years ago interracial couples were prohibited from legally marrying. Today, very similar discriminatory arguments are being used to prohibit same-gender couples from marrying.[5]Of course, this argument presumes a virtual legal equivalency between skin color or race and "sexual orientation."
2) Marriage is a "basic human right" and choice of marriage partners should in no way be regulated by government; therefore same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry.
Marriage is an important personal choice and a basic human right. The decision to get married should belong to the couple in love, not the state.[6]Here, the operative presumption seems to be that every "sexual orientation" is fundamentally like every other, and relationships involving any and all "sexual orientations" should be freely chosen by the individuals in relationships and then recognized without question by the state.
3) Civil and religious marriage will remain separate institutions if same-sex marriages are legalized.
Legally, religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions. Though many faiths do perform same-gender marriages now, they have no legal recognition as civil marriages. The state should not dictate which marriages any religion performs or recognizes, just as religions should not dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state.[7]
These statements seem to presume that recognition of same-gender marriages will have little social impact, in either religious, civil or economic spheres.
4) Same-gender couples cannot legally marry in any state, despite how much they may feel a "need" to (emotionally), or how much their "families" need civil marriage's protections, benefits and responsibilities.[8]
In Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan's book-length apologia for same-sex marriage, the author asserts that...
The introduction of gay marriage would not be some sort of leap in the dark, a massive societal risk. Homosexual marriages have always existed, in a variety of forms; they have just been euphemized. Increasingly they exist in every sense but the legal one. As it has become more acceptable for homosexuals to acknowledge their loves and commitments publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and friends. A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy trend.[9]Elsewhere, Sullivan explains further:
In the contemporary West, marriage has become a way in which the state recognizes an emotional commitment by two people to each other for life. And within that definition, there is no public way, if one believes in equal rights under the law, in which it should legally be denied homosexuals.[10]
So long as conservatives recognize, as they do, that homosexuals exist and that they have equivalent emotional needs and temptations as heterosexuals, then there is no conservative reason to oppose homosexual marriage and many conservative reasons to support it.[11] Read More
