The problem with this argument is that it has no foundation. There are no points or counterpoints to the argument. It is almost always a blanket statement for which no evidence is presented. Whenever I hear someone give this argument I hope they will tell me how gay marriage damages anything. But they don’t say. On the occasions when I’ve been talking to someone and they use this argument, I always ask how. There is usually one of two responses… either there is silence followed by a complete change of subject or argument, or they try to tie it in with the slippery slope theory. Once in a while this argument is followed by one more simple, blanket statement: ‘It blurs the lines of what marriage is’. And, I guess (depending on your definition of ‘marriage’), that could be a very true statement.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

So let’s begin with a couple of definitions of marriage:

I’ve given two definitions not for the purpose of showing how the definition of marriage has changed. The most recent Webster’s Dictionary is virtually the same as the one I used and where there are differences it is more for brevity than substance. For instance, they leave out ‘Maritage’. (Maritage is a rather interesting word in and of itself which has to do with some marriages during Feudal times but nothing to do with marriage in today’s world. I don’t remember it having anything to do with marriage in 1976 either – but that’s another question.) I’ve given two definitions to demonstrate that a more Politically Correct definition is no more confusing than the traditional definition – nor does it blur any lines. The PC version simply leaves out gender references other than where it applies to card games. Rather than ‘men and women’ or ‘husband and wife’ it substitutes the word ‘spouses’ or ‘two people’.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

Now one could argue that the more modern version is politicized and serves some broader agenda than to simply define a word. That may be true but I have no way of knowing the reasoning behind the definition. Consequently I will simply let it stand as is.

I will not spend time going through each of the given permutations of the word. Rather I will concentrate only on the first one. ^1a)The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife. ^1b)A mutual relation of husband and wife. ^1c)The institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. OR ¹⁾Legal relationship between spouses. : A legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.

With the inclusion of the word ‘Legal’ in Encarta’s version, the two definitions are in no way different throughout most of the world. With only a few exceptions, gay marriage is simply not legal right now. So I am going to look to what I believe the future will be when there are no ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ marriages but only marriages.

In the best of worlds when a man and woman have committed their lives to each other and either walked the Church aisle or gone before a civil judge to publicly declare their intentions, they live and love together faithfully for the rest of their lives. They are monogamous, in love with and supportive of each other. They usually raise children and hopefully model what true marriage should be. They allow each other to be fully who he or she is and help each other attain their individual goals as well as reaching the goals they’ve set as a couple. In many ways they complete each other. At the end of marriage, when one of the two passes away, they are more in love than on the day they married.

Of course that is a fairy tale. Few if any marriages ever fulfill that fantasy. There are always the bumps, the rough spots, the spats, the disagreements, the selfish moments and the frustrations of life in general. But, despite the problems, a few manage to survive and at least come close to a lot of the ideal. They should be commended. Honored. Copied.

But if such a family were to have a gay family move in next door, how would any of the ideal be affected? How would any of the reality be affected? Would the straight couple’s love become weaker? Would their commitment to each other waiver? Would one of them suddenly become unfaithful or unsupportive? Would they stop working towards their individual or joint goals? Would there be more disagreements between them? More spats? Would either succumb completely to selfishness? The obvious answer is, “Of course not”. The fact is that there would be no affect on the straight couple at all. There would be no more affect than there is now when gay couples, without the benefit of marriage, move in next door to a heterosexual couple that is in a healthy relationship.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

Then again, few of today’s marriages ever approach the ‘dream world’ fantasy we have created. Even few of those whose marriages last until ‘death do us part’ manage to fulfill that dream. Over the years too many of them fall into a comfortable marriage of convenience. It is more convenient to stay married – to maintain the familiar – than it is to divorce and begin new lives. Too often they become merely roommates. At worst they become truly unhappy. But they still maintain. They still play house so that the neighbors don’t know or so the family doesn’t find out. Sometimes they do so out of a sense of commitment (to their own word rather than to each other), or for the kids, or because God will be angry if they violate their vows. Once in a while fear of their spouse will prevent dissolution. Sadly this often leads to the early death of one or the other.

How would a couple of married gay neighbors adversely influence this type of family? The individuals in such a relationship are usually too consumed with themselves to notice the neighbors anyway. Their marriage wouldn’t become less convenient. The pressures to not let the truth be known wouldn’t go away. Even if they were unhappy in their marriage, they wouldn’t have any extra hurdles to clear in order to maintain. If God would be angry at the breaking of their vows, He would still be angry. If God hated gay people or thought them sinful (which he doesn’t) it would have no affect on his attitude toward the straight couple next door. And, unfortunately, it wouldn’t have any bearing on those who live in fear of each other. The fear would still be there. And if the fearful spouse ever did seek help from neighbors, I doubt they would care whether those neighbors were gay or straight.

We all know that half of today’s marriages do not last until ‘death do us part’. At least not in the Unites States. Most marriages end in divorce. While that is a sad commentary on the American attitude toward marriage, it likely wouldn’t be changed by allowing gay marriage. In my experience far more gay couples end their relationships than do straight couples, but when marriage is allowed, I think that will probably conform to the statistics we see today. Without marriage it is too easy to commit. Indeed there is no commitment made. Commitments always have more than just rewards… they have responsibilities and penalties. From what I understand the breaking up of unmarried straight couples is slightly higher than for those contractually married, but with most states recognizing some form of common law marriage there can be penalties even if no formal contract exists.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

Marriage would cause gay couples to think through their relationships a little longer… with a little more depth than is required today. Today we can walk away too easily because we too quickly enter into relationship without regard to responsibility or penalty. In walking away we do give up the rewards of relationship, but there are no penalties beyond the hurt. When a straight marriage breaks up the penalties often include continued financial responsibility, property divisions and requirements toward the children. While a common law marriage that ends gracefully does not have to endure any penalties, most are required to go through the same process if one spouse or the other contests that dissolution.

If one thinks through the whole situation, they are less likely to so quickly enter into such relationships. If straight couples were to think through the responsibilities of marriage and the penalties of divorce, there would undoubtedly be less divorce… and probably less marriage too. Unfortunately we, as human beings, see only the rewards and so we see the divorce rate climb. Gay couples, too, would have to think through the process. We want equality. And in that equality our responsibilities, our penalties as well as our rewards would mirror straight marriages. And they should. But gay couples have not changed (for the better or for the worse) the landscape of straight marriage today. Our inclusion into that institution would have no effect on that landscape either.

The perversions I’ve heard warnings against are pederasty, polygamy and bestiality. All of these things are present in today’s world and in this country. So gay marriage would not introduce anything new. The fear is that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalizing of one or all of these three things. Such fear, as well as the logic used to fan that fear, are pure fantasy and is on its face foolish. But those arguments are much more damaging than they appear to be on the surface. On the surface they are straw men set up to focus attention away from the inequality under which gay people live. But these arguments are more than their foolish appearance. Unlike a true ‘straw man’ argument, they carry a vile message beneath their surface. They equate gay couples with those who have sex with animals and with those who live their lives in orgies and with those who molest children. The argument is far more dangerous than it seems because the nature of the argument is not openly revealed. It remains hidden. The slippery slope argument needs to be addressed not on the basis that we can create laws to prevent those other perversions, but on the basis that gay people are not perverted. Indeed we have created laws against all three of those perversions. And for far too long in American history we, as gay people, have had laws passed against us just as they have been passed against those who enter into perverted sexual relationships. They still pass such laws today.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

I have yet to meet anyone who is favor of allowing a marriage or sexual relationship between a human and an animal. Why? I am not going to discuss the “it’s against nature” reasoning here. After all, science has been experimenting with crossbreeding species for years. No, the reason that such relationships should not be allowed is that both parties cannot think through the responsibilities and penalties of such a union. One of them is not capable of such thought. It is, therefore, an unequal relationship. Any relationship that does not have the potential for equality between the partners is perversion. Truly, those couples who simply do not bother to think through the issues of authority, rights and responsibilities of marriage are more closely aligned with those who enter into bestiality than are those gay couples who would use their minds as well as their hearts before marriage.

But this argument says that if, as a man, I would not marry a woman; I might as well marry a cow as to marry another man. It says my character is the same as someone who would bed an animal. Therefore, if society will not acknowledge a bestial relationship, why would we legalize a gay one? If someone cannot see both the ignorance of that logic as well as its evil, then I have to equate their mental abilities to that of some brute beast. If that person were to suddenly fall in love with their pet rat… at least the relationship would be equal.

Polygamy is another animal altogether. The arguments against it are thin and are based mostly on Christian beliefs. To those outside of a polygamous relationship, it is often seen as a man having many wives in order to satisfy his sexual appetite. It is seen as a man and his harem. I suppose some of that may enter into some polygamous unions but I doubt it is the majority of them. In this country polygamy is usually based on some religious ideal too.

Indeed, the foundation of Christianity is filled with those who were polygamous. God Himself seemed to encourage it. Perhaps God realized He was wrong and corrected the error – but I doubt it. Maybe He just changed His mind. Or it could be that He phased polygamy out by design. But there is no intrinsic proof of any of those things and so all religious belief on the subject is based on faith. Faith is a personal belief. While it is perfectly acceptable to share that faith with someone willing to listen, it is unacceptable to pass laws that seek to control others’ behavior based solely on that faith. A more compelling argument – to my mind anyway – the legal nightmare than would be created if we legalized polygamy. Financial requirements, property settlements and custody battles would be far more difficult with multiple partners than they are with only two… and they are problem enough for the courts with just two. Inheritance laws would have to be rewritten. Divorce laws would have to be expanded. Is the expense worth it? Then again, I don’t know that government or political hardships should be much of a consideration when laws are written or when relationships are legalized.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

We have all heard of some of the abuses that have gone on (probably still go on) in some large polygamous communities. There have been instances when little girls are forced to enter into marriage like relationships with adults. Sometimes, from what I’ve heard, even relatives can have a vision or receive pastoral demands to marry each other. Such things, of course, should not be. These types of relationships fall into the next section on pederasty and so I will not deal with them here.

But, if consenting adults wish to enter into committed, faithful, loving polygamous relationships with each other, I honestly do not find any religious or logical grounds upon which to deny them the right. Whether that is a husband with multiple wives or a wife with multiple husbands or even with groups that may contain multiple husbands and wives I fail to see a reason to legally forbid such unions. Most polygamy does not exist to fulfill sexual appetite nor are they the master/slave relationships we sometimes find in harem situations. Most are attempts to attain some spiritual ideal (at least in this country). Even though I cannot understand their reasoning and, after having gone through a 25-year marriage with one loving woman, I would never consider a polygamous relationship for myself (gay or straight), I still do not find any compelling reason to forbid others to form those unions. So, if gay marriage begins the journey toward freedom for another group of consenting adults, then that is a slippery slope well worth following.

Pederasty is a particularly nasty subject. We hear about it too often as it is. Usually it is an issue of abuse – of the power of adults over children. And the vast majority of it happens between adult men and little girls. But child abuse is not the argument here. There are groups in existence, which advocate the right of adults to form sexual relationships with children. On the gay side is the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). In my opinion they are asking for the right to abuse our youth. But again, abuse is not the issue at hand. They would claim that they do not abuse children. They staunchly repeat that they would never favor any type of abuse of children. But regardless of what they claim and regardless of any abuse that may enter into their preferred relationships, they do advocate perversion.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

The relationships they fight for are not equal. They cannot be equal because both partners, even if consensual, are not equal in either maturity or legality. Most of the children are not capable of truly thinking through the responsibilities, the rights and authority questions inherent in any relationship. And even those that may be capable do not have the legal right or responsibility to do so. The adult in those situations has all the authority and so bears all the responsibility. In turn, more often than not, they accept all the rights too. That is not an equal relationship and so is a perverted one. I will leave the decision as to whether there is abuse (in the classical sense of the word) to someone else. I think it is abusive. But most certainly it is not a union entered into by two equals who have the same amount of control over what goes on. Any such relationship needs to continue to be regulated by law if only because of the inequality involved.

But the argument goes that since we have laws against both sexual relationships between adults and children and since gay people are, by nature, child molesters, we dare not legalize the relationships formed by consenting gay adults because we would then soon legalize the pederast relationships too. But the fact is that there is no larger percentage of gay pedophiles than there are of straight ones. Legalizing gay marriage would have no more affect on pederasty than does the fact that straight marriage has been legal throughout history. Those who are pedophiles will continue to be pedophiles. Those who are not won’t suddenly turn into child molesters. But this argument assumes that gay and pederast are one and the same and so deserve the same treatment under the law… or at least the same lack of legal sanction. That is the underlying evil that we don’t see on the surface. That is the lie we need to combat.

Here again, we will have to define ‘nature’. Too many people use this argument meaning that being gay is against normal behavior or attitudes or orientation. Of course being gay is not the norm. Neither is being 6 feet tall or blond and blue or any other specific characteristic you can name. If that is how the word nature is to be defined, then ladies who wear a size 2 are against nature. So is anyone who happens to be of European descent or those who wear size 11 shoes… or don’t wear shoes at all. So let’s define nature and we’ll then decide how being gay fits into that definition.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

I have chosen these particular sections of Webster’s definitions for three reason: first, they meet the criteria for the use of the word I most often hear; secondly, some of the other definitions are based solely on religion, or they have to do with specific characteristics (such as ‘Human Nature’); thirdly, to cite the whole definition of either word would take up far too much room.

Nature can be broken up into two types (for the purpose of this discussion). Obviously I have used the more general type above, but nature can also be specific. Elephant trunks or zebra stripes are natural. But it would not be natural to find them on a cat or fish or human. The more general type of nature would be to find ears or nostrils on those in the animal kingdom. So even if it were only found in mankind, homosexuality would still be arguably natural. But the fact is it is found in far more species than humans as is documented in the book Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by biologist Bruce Bagemihl, PhD.

Consequently, there is no way for homosexuality to be considered unnatural unless you define ‘natural’ through the prism of religion. While that is an acceptable definition for the various religions that condemn gay people, it is not an acceptable definition for government (at least not for our government) that is supposed to be religiously neutral. While religious institutions need to have the freedom to accept or reject behavior according to their own interpretations and, if present, even their bigotry, government cannot have that luxury. It has to afford equality to those whose behavior or characteristics have no effect on others.

This and the next subject come mostly from segments of the gay community themselves. Will gay marriage lead to our homogenization? The answer is, of course, “Yes”. Eventually. Equality tends to do that.

Religion My Visions Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

To those who would rather not fit into the mainstream of American life… into society in general… they have, to my way of thinking, given up their right to demand equality. We cannot demand both equality and separation. We cannot insist on being both inside and outside at the same time.

That is not to say that our heritage as gay people will cease to exist. Our culture, while it will likely change, will not go away anymore than the hundreds of cultures in our society have gone away. Those cultures written over the years by people of different races or genders or abilities or ages or ethnicities or religions have not gone away. Certainly they have changed. They have adapted to a new environment of acceptance. Even those cultures, which we, as a country, have sought to destroy, have not been destroyed. Even the cultures whose past is filled with violence and hatred have not gone away. Our culture is no more fragile than theirs. It has not been forged quickly or easily or without the pain of discrimination.

It is my hope and belief that only a few elements of our culture will fall away as we march toward equality. The secrecy and deception that was required for survival should disappear over time. Equality means they will not be needed any longer. We see some of that change happening even today. Less and less do we need to define our partners as ‘roommates’ or ‘friends’. Having the ability to safely be open and honest in our dealings with the straight community is one change I see happening and one that I hope continues to grow within my gay community.

Another element is the decline of fear. We have lived in that far too long. We see, especially among our young people, a lessening of fear. But sometimes that comes out of youthful defiance rather than the absence of things to fear. More and more we will see that fear loose its grip not out of defiance of fear, but because there is actually less to fear.

Is it homogenization? Yes it is. And we need that homogenization to truly consider ourselves equal.

And, finally, is marriage an unnecessary intrusion into our lives? I guess the answer hinges on the definition of two words: ‘Unnecessary’ and ‘Intrusion’.

If government required people to marry it would be intrusive. If government forced the fundamentalist church down the street to perform gay marriages it would be intrusive. There are Churches today that will not perform interracial marriages; or marriages between those of different faiths or if one of the partners has been divorced. They must have the freedom to make those decisions. In the same way if government only allowed ‘gay churches’ or gay officials to conduct our ceremonies they would be intruding. But to give us the choice of marriage is not an intrusion into our lives. Rather, denying us that freedom is intrusive and is unnecessary.

Now, is gay marriage necessary? That opens a whole ‘nother can of worms. Of course the answer is “Yes” in my opinion. It is not necessary for us to marry any more than it is necessary for anyone to marry. But marriage brings with it a host of other rights and privileges that are not now ours. I’ve heard a lot of numbers given as to how many rights come with marriage. I’ve never tried to count them. But regardless of the different numbers thrown around, everyone seems to agree it is more than a thousand. Is marriage necessary to access those rights and privileges? Yes. Whether it should be necessary may still be open for debate, but not the fact of its present necessity.

Many of those rights can be gained through legal maneuvering even today. But that does not make marriage unnecessary anymore than the fact that black folk used to have their own drinking fountains and their own bathrooms and their own place at the back of the bus made racial equality unnecessary. While they had access to those things I mentioned they did not have equality. They knew that ‘separate but equal’ is never equal. Just because we may be able to legally maneuver ourselves into some of the rights of marriage, our equality is still denied.

So is giving us the right to marry intrusive? No. Is it necessary? For equality’s sake the answer is an unequivocal YES!