Gay Marriage

Here's my best non-religious argument to vote against gay marriage. It's aimed at those who think homosexual relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual relationships, but feel that there is no logical reason to oppose them and that it's an issue of equality. In summary, I argue it's a slippery slope, all limits on marriage are arbitrary, all laws are based on morality, any marriage law will be based in arbitrary morality, those who favor gay marriage will vote based on their arbitrary morality, those who oppose gay marriage shouldn't be afraid to vote against it based on their arbitrary morality. Since I'm in California, I'll assume California's civil union laws are in force, which give homosexuals every legal right enjoyed by straight couples.

The most popular reason to support gay marriage is equality; I'll deal with others after the main argument. First, equality means equal treatment. Under California's civil union laws, gay couples have every legal right that straight couples have. The CA Supreme Court found that the only thing civil unions didn't have was the dignity that comes with the title "marriage." Government enforced dignity is a terrifying concept, but it also is not a question of equality. Equality requires giving both groups the same legal rights, to inheritance, hospital visits, etc. But deciding whether we, as a society, believe that gay unions are exactly equivalent to straight marriages is a purely moral issue. Those who support gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions with equal rights, base their arguments on the moral conclusion that the relationships are equal. This conclusion is entirely based on their morality.

Many of us think that allowing others to believe and worship how, where and what they may prohibits us from "legislating our morality on others." But all laws are moral. Laws against murder are based on the moral philosophy that people shouldn't be allowed to harm others. Laws against shoplifting are based on the moral philosophy that people can own property. Laws legalizing gay marriage are based on the moral philosophy that others should have to respect gay unions and straight marriages equally. In the end, any decision on gay marriage, for or against, will legislate someone's morality.

Those who favor gay marriage aren't afraid to legislate their morality. They understand that democracy is premised on allowing everyone to voice their morality and bind others to accept it under the law until the majority shifts. We do this with pornography laws, social security and its taxes, liquor laws, environmental protection laws, education taxes and distribution. You can't say my morality doesn't require me to support senior citizens, or to educate strangers' children, so I'm going to keep my taxes. The foundation of democracy is to allow majorities to impose the consequences of their moral beliefs on others. Nowhere is this more appropriate than in purely moral issues, such as whether gay unions and straight marriages are equal.

My final argument here is aimed at the younger generation who argue that many of their good friends are gay. We've somehow forgotten that believing homosexual activity is a sin DOES NOT mean you hate gays. Legally binding yourself in a sexually active homosexual relationship makes you a sinner, but we are all sinners. "Sinner" shouldn't be such a damning pejorative. Your unrepentant white lies will keep you from God just as well as homosexual activity. Any derision or negativity associated with the word "sinner" equally applies to you, to me, and to the best people you know (Yeah, your momma's a sinner; there I said it). Really great people aren't perfect, and when they aren't perfect, they are sinners. You can love your gay friends, recognize and celebrate their good qualities, and still believe homosexual activity is a sin. And if it's a sin, you wouldn't want your friend to be bound in a legal relationship to it.

Finally, arguments against gay marriage that are not based on equality are usually supported by reasoning that applies equally well to support legalizing polygamy, group-marriage, marriages between siblings, marriage to oneself for the tax benefits, or marriages between an elderly grandma and a financially supportive granddaughter, etc. The most common argument is: "If two people love each other, they should be able to get married." There are two are issues here. First is that there must be exactly two people. This number is arbitrary. There is no logical reason to suggest that two is the perfect number for all relationships everywhere. So if you use this reasoning, you are already drawing arbitrary lines based on your morality. (Note: gay marriage advocates usually oppose polygamy, so they are also putting arbitrary limits on marriage based on their morality---exactly what they tell us not to do.) The second issue here is the argument that "love plus desire to marry is sufficient to get married." This reasoning also supports arguments favoring polygamy, polyandry, sibling marriages, etc., which even gay marriage advocates oppose. So they can't believe that "love plus desire to marry" is entirely sufficient. The unspoken requirement is that they, too, will only accept relationships they see as morally acceptable or practical, even with their expanded view of what is moral.