And I realize now that it's the 24-hour news media that is really fueling this trend. When they run out of news to talk about, they then turn to their commentators to editorialize about these same issues. And it's rarely an intelligent discourse. Often times it's one person or a panel of "experts" who go round and round spouting the talking points of whatever political party the network is affiliated with. That's not a discussion; that's a lecture on one side of the issue. And these lectures are what's helping to further all of the misinformation out there that people who turn to the news (and only that one news channel) are continuously repeating. Gone are the Edward R. Murrows and Tom Brokaws of the world. Now we can choose which kind of news we want to hear by our political preferences, because no one wants to hear something that doesn't gel with all of their beliefs. That would be horrible.
So, because I don't believe that any of that bullshit should be the way society evolves (or devolves as I'm beginning to fear) I'm going to take the most current hot button issue and break it down argument by argument. Because when President Barack Obama said he supported gay marriage, there was such a ridiculous frenzy by the media over the honesty and timing of his statement. And I couldn't care less whether it was a bad move or a good move for the election. What I care about are the arguments for and against this issue. And instead of falling into talking points, I will actually address the other side of the argument. This shouldn't be too difficult, because it really comes down to religious belief versus civil rights.
Argument #1: If we allow gay marriage, then people will be allowed to marry animals and inanimate objects.
Response: Neither animals nor inanimate objects can give their consent or sign a marriage license. There, that was easy.
Argument #2: If we allow gay marriage, then people will want to allow polygamy.
Response: I'm sorry to tell you this, but polygamy is not a new concept. Straight people already tried that years ago. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Argument #3: The Bible says being gay is wrong.
Response: Yes it does, in the Old Testament. But in this country there are two things in existence that make this a moot point. One is the freedom of religion. This says that anyone can practice any religion they want, which means not everyone believes in a collection of stories written thousands of years ago. If a religion such as Catholicism doesn't agree with gay marriage, then they don't allow the ceremonies to be performed in their churches. The second thing is the separation of church and state brought forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. This means that any kind of religion (popular or not) cannot be used to make decisions about civil rights. And the last time I checked, marriage is a civil right, not a religious one. Therefore, it doesn't matter what any religion states- everyone should have the same basic freedoms.
Argument #4: Gay marriage will ruin the "sanctity of marriage".
Response: Newt Gingrich seems to be the most popular example being used to show how ridiculous this statement is. He is Roman Catholic and has been married three times, leaving the first two wives while they were sick. He also committed adultery and suggested having an "open relationship". But he continues to lecture others on "family values", suggesting people only listen to what he has to say, rather than pay attention to how he lives.
Now I'll admit, this thing with Gingrich is a talking point. But I still feel it's a good representation as to why gay marriage is not necessary to ruin the "sanctity of marriage". Straight people have been doing that for years, given that roughly 50% of marriages end in divorce. The only way that would happen with gay marriage is if the government forced the churches to perform ceremonies for gay people. And the government can't do that because of the laws in place that I mentioned in Argument #3. See how that works both ways?
Argument #5: We need to stop comparing gay rights to things like women's suffrage or the Civil Rights movement. Gay marriage is a recent issue and does not have the long struggle yet in comparison to others.
Response: I only just read this in a thread on Facebook the other day, but I thought it was an intriguing one. The person seemed to imply that the fight for gay rights was nothing like women or African American people fighting for equal rights, simply because the struggle hasn't been going on for years. Except, um, it HAS been going on for a REALLY long time. The only reason it seems like gay marriage is a recent issue is because it used to be SO taboo to be gay that no one would even admit it. We FINALLY reached a point in this country, I'd say, in the last 30 years or so, where homosexuality wasn't seen as an abomination. (And even now, there are plenty of people here and in other countries who still believe that). But we've seen more books and TV shows and movies that have gay characters and deal with equal rights for gay people, and I say it's about friggin time. Society is growing up (if not VERY slowly).
Oh, also, one of my friends made a good point that if the Internet had existed during women's suffrage or the civil rights movement then it may not have lasted as long as it did. That's just speculation of course, but it makes sense to me.
Argument #6: The individual states should be allowed to vote on this issue.
Response: There's only one quote needed to answer that statement, and it was said by Rev. Al Sharpton while he was on the show Real Time with Bill Maher. "The role of government is to protect people. And if you had civil rights voted on I'd be sitting in the back of the bus." His point was that if you allow states to vote on something that should be a human right, their prejudices would come into play and you'd have "tyranny by majority". Freedom and equality are the two things our government is required to uphold for all of its citizens.
Argument #7: "How am I supposed to explain the gay lifestyle to my children?"
Response: Well, there are two ways to handle that. There's the comedian Louis C.K. way, where he says that two men who want to get married shouldn't be stopped just because you don't want to talk to your kids for five minutes about the issue. It's your child so it's not up to other people to figure that out for you.
Then there's the president's way, where he says that his two daughters have friends with gay parents and they don't understand why they wouldn't be afforded the same rights as anyone else. He claimed it would be more difficult to explain to them why it was wrong, since children are often told that we're all created equal.
Argument #8: Gay marriage will destroy the family dynamic.
Response: I think the term "family dynamic" has changed quite a bit over the years. It's no longer a husband, wife, and 2.2 kids. There are plenty of unwed parents, single parents, couples without children, and families with adopted children who have redefined that term, making gay parents only one group on a long list. And according to research, gay parents are often more committed to raising a child because they MUST choose to have kids. There are no accidental pregnancies. So while some say gay marriage will destroy the family dynamic, the evidence shows having gay parents doesn't destroy anything. I mean, sure, back in the Bible days the human population was much smaller and it was important for people to be fruitful and multiply. But to imply that now, at 7 billion strong, we still need every man and every woman to pair off in marriage to ensure the survival of the species? I don't think there's any need for concern.
Now I've also heard others use the term "family dynamic" to mean that gay people can't raise children with the "correct morals and values". In this case I assume you're referring back to Argument #3 concerning religion- that because gay people are seen as bad in the Bible then they must not be religious or have the same morality as your religion. Well, I'm here to tell you that a) there are gay people who are religious, and b) you don't need religion to grow up with a moral code. There are plenty of atheists who raise their children to be intelligent and respectful of others and not to sit in judgment, just as there are plenty of religious people who teach their kids to be intolerant of those who believe in something else.
Now I'm sure there are other arguments out there against gay marriage, but I imagine they fall under the same definition of "talking points used for misdirection because there's really nothing out there that should prevent gay marriage from being legal". And so I leave it here.
