How to win the gay marriage debate [View All]

[truhavoc]

My state of Ohio recently passed the most far reaching legislation “protecting the institution of marriage” ever in the history of the United States. It struck me recently how many people, at least according to polls, support legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I was utterly shocked how many people out there supported what I feel to be a bigoted, hatemongering ideal which only sets back the equal rights movement. This caused great inner strife, I asked friend after friend, and they held similar views it drew me to wonder were the polls wrong? Heaven forbid, the very thing the media relies on for absolutely everything, the polls just could NOT be wrong. So dismissing the ideal of some conspiracy by those who operate polls (that means you Zogby), I decided to dive deeper to find the root of this evil I perceived.

I feel that the problem here is an equal rights issue which some either do not understand, or have been swayed by religious teachings. The basis of my understanding is that homosexuals are not “deviants”, they do not come into this world and make the conscious decision to spite us all by sleeping with the same sex. I do not feel that it is a handicap, for there are many examples of this being perfectly normal behavior in the animal world. Case in point, our closest relatives on the genetic level are the Bonobo, they are 97% the same on the genetic level as Homo sapiens. In common practice, all Bonobo display at least bi-sexual tendencies, and female bonobo’s in captivity are know to have a “lesbian” encounter every several minutes. There is a written history of homosexual encounters happening throughout our history, in Greek and Roman civilization it was especially commonplace. To say that we are now more “civilized” and are not drawn by this so called devilish desires that affected the past would be absurd. I am not suggesting that we should all soul search and discover our own homosexual desires, but they are most certainly there on some level, no matter how oppressed.

Point being, homosexuality is not something that should be deemed as less than normal, and undeserving of equal protection under the law. Conservatives play this matter to be one of “protecting the institution of marriage”, my question to them is from what? I fail to see how two loving individuals committing themselves to each other for better or for worse is going to do harm to the institution of marriage, in the face of heterosexual marriages like that of Britney Spears. The common reply to such an assertion is, “Well, what’s next?” Obviously this is implying that those who are homosexual are on the same level as people who have intercourse with animals, or want to rape children, or something of the like. This should never be allowed to reach this answer, democrats should stand up and make sure those that use this line are called exactly what they are, ignorant. The other common response is a reliance on religious scripture which I will address later on. The problem constantly stated is that of redefining marriage, thus diminishing the institution itself. According to Merriam-Webster Online:



1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>



The argument would be something like if in addition to the above definition it said something along the lines of “a union between those of the same race”. A definition is only the reflection of what people know something as. Possibly in the past the definition for the term “Earth” was: The flat surface on which we live on, the geographic center of the universe. This being the definition for the term “Earth” only reflects what is known about the object, thus how could something like homosexual marriage be included in the definition of marriage when it has yet to be practiced, and part of the common idea of marriage. The term slavery could have been defined using African Americans, but in no way does this mean that slavery intrinsically implies African Americans. The reasoning used via this path is illogical, and conservatives should not be able to get away with this. Also much needs to be said about the way Christian religion has shaped this debate over the years. Terry Eastland of Crosswalk.com writes:

“This tells us Americans still believe marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman-not between two people of the same sex. And it reveals the enduring influence of the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. As one survey respondent said, homosexual marriage would be "against the word of God." On the critical issue of "gay marriage," it's apparent that the nation hasn't lost its moral compass. “

What about homosexual marriage is exactly “against the word of God”? First there are qualifiers you have to know in order to frame the words of the Bible in the correct context. First off, words such as “homosexual” and “sodomy” did not exist at the time the Bible was written, those words were added into the translation at a later time. At the first glance of any Bible passage which includes either of these words it should automatically throw up a red flag, for instance the term “homosexuality” was not coined until the late 19th century. Any passage that sounds like the following, “"Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" (The Living Bible, Leviticus 18:22) should automatically be taken with a grain of salt, for it is likely to be the product of years of translation mostly for economic gains. Living in 16th century Europe how favorable do you think the public would be towards your translation if you didn’t explicitly say something forbidding homosexuality, especially after centuries of translations from the powers that be within the church. There are numerous different translations of the passage above from its original Hebrew literally translated as “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" This has many different contexts which can be viewed here http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm.

If homosexual marriage is made into an election year subject I believe that if framed in the correct context, and without playing politics with the subject it can be one that democrats can lead with, and win with. The issue should not be what conservatives see as damaging the institution of marriage, but it should be seen as depriving equally deserved Americans of their equal rights under their law. It should not be seen as going against the word of God, but in the very least as respecting the teachings of Jesus Christ (not once in scripture does Jesus mention homosexuality). It should be viewed like it is, as a product of past prejudices which have no place in the modern world. The context of the debate suggests that homosexual relationships are against the nature of humanity because of the inability to procreate. There are many children in the world that are given up for adoption and could use a stable home. Nothing suggests that a homosexual partnership could not raise a child any more or less successfully than a heterosexual couple. I end with a letter from then Senator Cornyn, who talks about interracial marriage:

“nly one kind of relationship has received such historic and multicultural elevated status in law, culture, and morality: the traditional marital union of two people of the same race. That is not because other kinds of relationships are unimportant, but rather because stable unions of two people of the same race are the strongest foundation mankind has ever known for ensuring the healthy upbringing of children. A wealth of social science research and data attest to this fact.



It does not disparage other kinds of relationships for society to recognize that children are raised best when they are raised by two people of the same race. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine an institution that has enjoyed such overwhelming consensus as traditional marriage. The traditional institution of marriage has existed as such throughout human history, across numerous and diverse cultures, countries, and civilizations as well as party lines, and in the laws, judicial precedents, traditions, and historical practices of all [] states.”

As someone who is engaged to marry a girl born in India, this argument especially hits home. All Americans deserve equal rights free from the oppression of others. I think the founding fathers are turning over in their graves as we speak, the fundamental premise of our republic is the protection of the minority. In this debate the interests of a powerful sect of our society is trying to infringe on the rights of the minority homosexual population. The democratic candidates need to speak up, and support equal rights for this minority, and frame it in the way which will look badly on the republican party for years to come.