Top 5 Gay Marriage Myths
June 30th 2008 15:08
This past weekend was the annual Gay Pride parade in San Francisco. In honor of that event, I present you with the Top 5 Myths about allowing gay marriage. I've listened to quite a bit of talk radio over the years, and these are the four that are most used by conservatives to justify the "man and woman" argument.
1. The Constitution defines marriage as between a "man and woman."
2. If you let two men marry, who’s to say that some guy won’t want to marry his dog?
3. If you let two people of the same sex marry, then you have to let three or more people get married too.
4. If we let gay people marry, they are going to want to adopt and that’s wrong and bad for the kids.
5. If we let gay people marry, it will make it more expensive for companies to provide benefits for everyone.
I’ve heard quite a few more, but these five seem to provide the backbone of the argument. Lets start at the top.
1. The Constitution didn't define it as anything. It is the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act filed in 1996 that defined it. Some uber-conservatives are still looking for a consitutional amendment to define it and protect the DOMA from scrutiny. I've said it before and will say it again: The Constitution was set to protect the people and limit governement control, not limit the people.
2. Seriously? This is no better than comparing a gay person to an animal. People are people. Dogs are dogs. If this is the most logical argument you can make, you need a new job.
3. Polygamy- so? Many cultures allow for this, and if we want to be as open minded as we say we are, then maybe we should just let people live as they want to. Wasn’t it freedom of religion that this country was founded on? Some women want to share their husband. I’m definately not one of them, but who am I to say what is right for others?
4. Here’s a newsflash for you- there are already tons of gay families in America. There are men and women who got married and had kids before the found out they were gay. There are women who have artificial insemination and share parenting with their partner. There are men who adopt and share parenting. There are surrogate mothers who provide babies for gay couples. Some point to studies that show that children raised by a married mother and father do better than children raised without one or the other. The flaw in using those studies is that they only discuss a situation where a parent is absent. In the case of same-sex families, there are two parents present. More recent studies have shown that there is no difference (better or worse) between kids raised by two heterosexual parents and kids raised by two homosexual parents. To strike down the super-assumptions that alot of older people have- no, they are no more likely to be gay and no more likely to be molested.
5. OK, so we are obviously in the middle of a serious healthcare crisis in America. Companies are already providing less benefits now than they did 50 years ago. Does that mean that gay people shouldn’t be entitled to the same things as anyone else? What makes you so much more special than them? Oh- but Josie- you said that if gay marriage led to legalizing polygamy that would be OK- what would that do to our system? Polygamy would obviously be a more complicated arrangement. I’ve thought a bit about it and I don’t see an issue as long as we apply the same rules to everyone and give the same benefits to everyone. As far as health insurance, I would imagine that there would have to be spending caps to what a company would put forth for one family. If you choose a life with several spouses, then you get the same benefits- no more or less- than anyone else. If it is not enough, then it is up to you to provide the remainder. That means that if you have 5 wives and your company provides for just 2 adults, then you would pay out of pocket for the other 4 wives and children. The change would be having that option to pay as a family where there currently isn’t. The same as with traditional marriage, a sole person, perhaps the first wife or someone agreed upon by the family would be the beneficiary of any life insurance plans. That agreed upon person would act almost like an executor to be sure the family as a whole was provided for. Then again, if we just did away with health insurance as we know it, that would fix the problem too...but thats a whole other article.
In every argument, someone is trying to either push their personal morality on other people or trying to prevent others from getting what they have because it could potentially take away from those who already have it. It all comes down to judgement and selfishness.
So there.
1. The Constitution defines marriage as between a "man and woman."
2. If you let two men marry, who’s to say that some guy won’t want to marry his dog?
3. If you let two people of the same sex marry, then you have to let three or more people get married too.
4. If we let gay people marry, they are going to want to adopt and that’s wrong and bad for the kids.
5. If we let gay people marry, it will make it more expensive for companies to provide benefits for everyone.
I’ve heard quite a few more, but these five seem to provide the backbone of the argument. Lets start at the top.
1. The Constitution didn't define it as anything. It is the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act filed in 1996 that defined it. Some uber-conservatives are still looking for a consitutional amendment to define it and protect the DOMA from scrutiny. I've said it before and will say it again: The Constitution was set to protect the people and limit governement control, not limit the people.
2. Seriously? This is no better than comparing a gay person to an animal. People are people. Dogs are dogs. If this is the most logical argument you can make, you need a new job.
3. Polygamy- so? Many cultures allow for this, and if we want to be as open minded as we say we are, then maybe we should just let people live as they want to. Wasn’t it freedom of religion that this country was founded on? Some women want to share their husband. I’m definately not one of them, but who am I to say what is right for others?
4. Here’s a newsflash for you- there are already tons of gay families in America. There are men and women who got married and had kids before the found out they were gay. There are women who have artificial insemination and share parenting with their partner. There are men who adopt and share parenting. There are surrogate mothers who provide babies for gay couples. Some point to studies that show that children raised by a married mother and father do better than children raised without one or the other. The flaw in using those studies is that they only discuss a situation where a parent is absent. In the case of same-sex families, there are two parents present. More recent studies have shown that there is no difference (better or worse) between kids raised by two heterosexual parents and kids raised by two homosexual parents. To strike down the super-assumptions that alot of older people have- no, they are no more likely to be gay and no more likely to be molested.
5. OK, so we are obviously in the middle of a serious healthcare crisis in America. Companies are already providing less benefits now than they did 50 years ago. Does that mean that gay people shouldn’t be entitled to the same things as anyone else? What makes you so much more special than them? Oh- but Josie- you said that if gay marriage led to legalizing polygamy that would be OK- what would that do to our system? Polygamy would obviously be a more complicated arrangement. I’ve thought a bit about it and I don’t see an issue as long as we apply the same rules to everyone and give the same benefits to everyone. As far as health insurance, I would imagine that there would have to be spending caps to what a company would put forth for one family. If you choose a life with several spouses, then you get the same benefits- no more or less- than anyone else. If it is not enough, then it is up to you to provide the remainder. That means that if you have 5 wives and your company provides for just 2 adults, then you would pay out of pocket for the other 4 wives and children. The change would be having that option to pay as a family where there currently isn’t. The same as with traditional marriage, a sole person, perhaps the first wife or someone agreed upon by the family would be the beneficiary of any life insurance plans. That agreed upon person would act almost like an executor to be sure the family as a whole was provided for. Then again, if we just did away with health insurance as we know it, that would fix the problem too...but thats a whole other article.
In every argument, someone is trying to either push their personal morality on other people or trying to prevent others from getting what they have because it could potentially take away from those who already have it. It all comes down to judgement and selfishness.
So there.
| 63 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by alt_ed
Pop Culturer
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
but what about a man who marry's severa; K9's? will they be covered by his employers health insurance policy =)
I've gotta say, when we (my partner and i) travelled around the US and Canada last year we hadn't ever really experienced the sort of discrimination that we found ourselves confronted with in the states before. Maybe it was the area (we travelled around the eastern states, before venturing up into canada).
Even us, the Aussie Bogan's seem to be more accepting of the times.
Hopefully, you can start to influence a few more of your countrymen/women to change their point of view.
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent
I'm sorry that you experienced that! I'm actually in the east and I'm surprised because thats probably the most accepting part of the country (besides california). New York and Philadelphia, the New England states, they are ahead of most of the country. I suppose that it depends on what part of the states you are in though- upstate NY and PA are less likely to be accepting...
I think the country has come a long way in the past 10 years, but it will probably be another 10 before its really where it should be.
Comment by Confusion at Random
Comment by Ex-Libertarian
I have always found this to be an effective rebuttal to Argument (well, straw-man fallacy, really) #2:
Conservatives wan't marriage to be about two things: definition, and sanctity. While marriage has many definitions (legal implications, familial impacts, etc), most anthropologist never contend that it is a ceremony confined to homosexuals. And, since marriage is about mutual love, commitment, etc, homosexual marriage is still sanctuous.
Now, here is the argument: whenever someone says that Gay marriage legitimizes "men marrying dogs", just point out a simple legal statute: marriage has to, by law, be agreed upon by BOTH parties. Obviously, a non-human cannot consent to a marriage proposal, so this argument is moot be legal definition, AND is moot in sanctity, since a person and a dog's love isn't mutual, nor proper for raising children.
Plus, gay marriage is practiced in many countries...and I don't see the sky falling down....
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent
Comment by Anonymous
As an aside, the commonly touted consent argument is definitional and a bit weak. If a man wanted to marry his dog and challenged a law because it denied him his fundamental right, the state would be hardpressed to say "well, we define marriage as a consenting contract, so no." Fundamental rights (personal liberty) trump definitional game-playing in legislation.