Same-Sex Marriage Debate and Three Reasons it Makes No Sense

The problems with the same-sex marriage debate
There are three major reasons why the debate over same-sex marriage makes no sense, regardless of which side of the argument one is on; they are the reasons why the entire discussion has been twisted beyond all rational reasoning and has become a complete sham. There is no universally acceptable solution to the debate because both sides in this fight – those who want same-sex marriage accepted and those who are against it – are concealing major flaws in their arguments.

Faith-based objection to same-sex marriage is an illusion. Although there are differing accounts of how the tradition of marriage came about, it clearly predates all modern religious institutions. Marriage was not created by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or followers of any other contemporary faith. The earliest accounts of unions between one man and one woman date back to over 2000 years before the birth of Christ. Although the institution of marriage is honored in most modern faiths, none can claim it exclusively. Whilst it is true that the teachings of Christianity, Judaism and Islam – the three faiths which, collectively, encompass the vast majority of human society – all recognize marriage as being a union between men and women, each of these faiths also accepted arranged marriages and polygamy. At least in the modern Christian world, the idea of arranged marriages is largely rejected. Most people see marriage as a voluntary union between two consenting adults; the idea that parents would force their children into marriages of convenience against their will is almost universally rejected in the Christian world.

Whilst Christians reject same-sex marriage by arguing that homosexuality is a sin, they are also prone to quoting a “biblical” definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Whilst the Bible does not specifically advocate arranged marriages, it also does not reject the practice and there are accounts of arranged marriages in the Bible. The fact that the majority of Christians, today, reject the practice of arranged marriage demonstrates that, when it suites them, they are willing to accept deviations from the biblical traditions of marriage. Polygamy is another issue which demonstrates this double-standard; the practice of a man having more than one wife is accepted in the bible, yet rejected in modern Christian countries.

Whilst the gay community could make the argument that its fight for the acceptance of gay marriage is based upon the ideals of equality, tolerance and diversity, the relentless – and even vicious – attacks, by gay activists, upon anyone who disapproves of them clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in such ideals. If the gay community was truly devoted to tolerance, then it would tolerate the will of the majority in those states where residents have firmly rejected the idea of legalizing gay marriage. Instead, as happened in California and now in Utah, gay activists have shown their intolerance and contempt for the democratic process by having courts overturn the majority will. These same activists claim to champion diversity, but accept no diversity of opinion, when it comes to sexuality or marriage. In a truly diverse society, it would be accepted that there are those who disapprove of homosexual sex, as well as same-sex marriage.

More hypocritical than gays who campaign for same-sex marriage, however, are those who are not, themselves, gay, but have politicized the issue or campaign for same-sex marriage because it clearly makes them feel better about themselves. The political Left has taken up the banner of equal rights for the LGBT community for the same reasons they pretend to care about the rights of women or minorities; they have always practiced a “divide and conquer” strategy; they deliberately foster a victim culture among minority groups. Ironically, those left-wingers who promote same-sex marriage – the same people who claim to be defenders of the black and Hispanic communities – routinely ignore the fact that same-sex marriage is largely disapproved of in both the black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, the Progressive left – alleged champions of women’s rights and gay rights – has allied itself with Islamist fundamentalism; the most obvious manifestation of which is the close ties between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamists, however, fiercely promote the repression of both women and gays. Every woman, every gay man, every lesbian and every transgender person should be asking why the very people who pretend to be fighting on their behalf are working hand-in-hand with those who advocate the stoning to death of gays, the legally accepted rape of women and the general persecution of all those who do not conform to their strict, quasi-religious rules.

There is no place for gays in Islamic society; there is no place for educated, independent women in Islamic society. Why then, are the very people who pretend to fight for women’s rights and gay rights also supporting Islamic fundamentalist organizations who do not recognize those rights? The answer is quite simple and very obvious: Progressives are using women and the LGBT community in the same way that they use the black community; as mere pawns in their power-play.

The modern Christian argument against same-sex marriage makes little sense; no more so than the pretense that this debate is a struggle for gay rights. The main reason, however, why the same-sex marriage debate is a joke is that marriage itself has legal status, which it should never have had. There is no reason whatever why government should be involved in marriage. The federal government of the United States has no constitutional right to define marriage; which is why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is completely unconstitutional. Those who claim to be defenders of the Constitution but, at the same time, argue that DOMA should be defended and enforced are displaying remarkable hypocrisy. Why should government have the power to lay down rules about who can and cannot marry? Why should marriage have any legal status whatever? Marriage is a bond between individuals which requires no legal recognition. Legally recognized marriage now has implications for taxation, immigration, inheritance, insurance and parental responsibility; all of these, however, can be untangled by the rewriting or repeal of existing laws. Marriage should be neither legal nor illegal – at least at the federal level. State legislators, with the consent of the people, can pass laws which recognize or reject certain unions; one has to ask, however, what the real point of such laws are. All legal implications of marriage – between one or more people of either sex – should be a matter of private arrangement. Legally binding contracts can still protect the rights and responsibilities of partners in any relationship without government guideleines.

Human interaction should not be dictated by government; nor should it be dictated by religion or used as a political weapon. Each of these three facets of the same-sex marriage debate is a red herring. Consenting adults should be able to form whatever domestic partnerships they deem appropriate. Neither politics nor religion have a legitimate role. Similarly, whether one approves or disapproves of same-sex marriage, it should not be a federal issue. If one lives in a state where the legislature or Governor has decided to legally define marriage, perhaps one should be asking why, rather than trying to litigate personal human relationships.

 

Editorial by Graham J Noble

Sources:
Historyofmarriage.org
Fox News

16 Responses to "Same-Sex Marriage Debate and Three Reasons it Makes No Sense"

  1. Ctrooper2011   April 11, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    I respectfully disagree with some of our argument (specifically marriage not being founded under religious principles), but I agree fully with the following statement:

    “Whilst the gay community could make the argument that its fight for the acceptance of gay marriage is based upon the ideals of equality, tolerance and diversity, the relentless – and even vicious – attacks, by gay activists, upon anyone who disapproves of them clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in such ideals. If the gay community was truly devoted to tolerance, then it would tolerate the will of the majority in those states where residents have firmly rejected the idea of legalizing gay marriage. Instead, as happened in California and now in Utah, gay activists have shown their intolerance and contempt for the democratic process by having courts overturn the majority will. These same activists claim to champion diversity, but accept no diversity of opinion, when it comes to sexuality or marriage. In a truly diverse society, it would be accepted that there are those who disapprove of homosexual sex, as well as same-sex marriage.”

    As a Catholic, I proudly say that I oppose gay marriage, but also support acceptance of homosexuals, as individuals of course. You see, unlike those who say that homosexual desire is a choice, I say that BOTH theories are a complete violation of common sense. To say that the temptation is inherited COMPLETELY violates all science because if it were, then why is the desire still here? Wouldn’t it have died out thousands of years ago? They didn’t have in-vitro back then. And to say that the desire is a CHOICE implies that there is no desire concerning heterosexual nor homosexual behavior, just Spock-like sociopathic “feelings.”

    I believe in the theory that it’s 100% environmental. One piece of evidence is the growing number of lesbians in America while SIMULTANEOUSLY having the media overglorify lesbian behavior.

    Reply
  2. Jeff A   January 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    “If the gay community was truly devoted to tolerance, then it would tolerate the will of the majority in those states where residents have firmly rejected the idea of legalizing gay marriage. Instead, as happened in California and now in Utah, gay activists have shown their intolerance and contempt for the democratic process by having courts overturn the majority will. These same activists claim to champion diversity, but accept no diversity of opinion, when it comes to sexuality or marriage. In a truly diverse society, it would be accepted that there are those who disapprove of homosexual sex, as well as same-sex marriage.”

    Uhhhh… you’re aware that courts in the U.S. are *part* of the Democratic process, right? Would a “truly diverse society” also accept that there are those who believe non-white people are inferior to white people, and thus permit racist laws to be enacted?

    The author clearly does not possess even a rudimentary understanding of how the U.S. government functions.

    Reply
  3. Jeff A   January 8, 2014 at 9:51 am

    Surely, this *has* to be satire.

    Reply
  4. Jack   January 8, 2014 at 8:03 am

    “Sources:
    Fox News”

    If I had saw that first I would not have wasted my time reading this editorial.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   January 8, 2014 at 8:17 am

      Firstly, that’s hilarious. I’m sure you get your news from “reliable and objective” sources, such as MSNBC.

      Secondly, I did not base any opinion on the Fox News article, which was merely a list of facts about the tradition of marriage.

      Personally, I resent the fact that people who are completely devoid of any intelligence whatsoever – such as yourself – even read our publication. Your comment was truly pathetic.

      Reply
  5. JeffreyRO5   January 6, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Silly editorial, but I’ll waste three minutes commenting. I can see the allure of blaming both sides in this argument, but it doesn’t make much sense to create a false moral equivalency between those opposed to marriage rights for gay people, and those supporting those rights. We have a legal system that presumes equal treatment under the law, lacking a rational public purpose to do otherwise. In the US, it’s a big deal to say some minority group doesn’t get an important legal right taken for granted (and often abused!) by the majority. The burden is certainly on the anti-gay marriage crowd to explain why it believes that gay people should not be afforded an important legal and civil right. So far, that crowd has relied on its majority status (“let the people vote!”), along with a not-s-subtle stoking of anti-gay sentiments, to try to get their way. Courts don’t seem to be buying it though, which of course has resulted in wildly inaccurate accusations of “activist judges!”.

    Reply
  6. Braedon Fell   January 6, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    I agree about Christian hypocrisy. I agree that marriage shouldn’t be a legal entity, but while it is and while it grants an elevated status with benefits, it is fair game. But you’re wrong about gay rights. This underlying conflict that is going on is precisely about gay rights.

    You failed to mention that conservatives have launched “relentless and vicious attacks” against gays. It is the unstated cause of your stated relentless and vicious effect. Conservatives call the other side evil, promote the legalization of discrimination, promote statutes against homosexuality. You pretend that conservatives are just good Christians, only voicing their own personal beliefs. But these aren’t just feeble positions voiced over too many drinks in a bar. That could be more easily tolerated. This is about the real political consequences of the conclusion of this argument. These are policies that will affect peoples lives.

    The reality is: Gays are hated. Gays are discriminated against. And until recently, homosexual behavior was illegal in parts of the USA (and it still is in 76 countries). Why?

    To “tolerate” being hated, discriminated against, and being incarcerated by turning the other cheek is commendably Christian, but it is bad politics. You suggest gays should tolerate their political adversaries opinions, by arguing that opposing them would be hypocritical. That is just silly. Gays must fight against discrimination and fight for equality. And while marriage is a legal entity that brings with it different elevated treatments, it is completely fair game.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   January 6, 2014 at 7:20 pm

      You can’t force people not to hate. As a Constitutional Libertarian, I belong to a section of society that is routinely the target of hate; we are constantly branded racists, anarchists, extremists and have even been called terrorists. We are are often the target of violent rhetoric. I don’t see anyone on the Left objecting to the level of vitriol that is directed at us on an almost daily basis from the mainstream media and prominent figures in the entertainment industry, not to mention Democratic, an even a few Republican, politicians. The Left often talks about hate but is full of hate for their political opponents.

      However; as I said, you cannot force people not to hate and you cannot force people to accept something of which they disapprove. What you can do is treat everyone equally under the law, which is what I personally believe should happen.

      Reply
  7. Stacey O.   January 6, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    So, since there are people that disagree that slavery, or even just segregation, should have ended, does that mean that their beliefs should outweigh human dignity?

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   January 6, 2014 at 12:50 pm

      I’m not entirely sure I understand the point you are trying to make, but you should certainly be directing that question towards Progressive Democrats, since they are the ones who tried so hard to preserve both slavery and segregation.

      Reply
      • Stacey O.   January 6, 2014 at 4:26 pm

        “If the gay community was truly devoted to tolerance, then it would tolerate the will of the majority in those states where residents have firmly rejected the idea of legalizing gay marriage.”
        “In a truly diverse society, it would be accepted that there are those who disapprove of homosexual sex, as well as same-sex marriage.”

        I have no problem with people believing what they what about marriage equality, but when they use that to deny another person legal rights it becomes a different story.

        Reply
      • Jeff A   January 8, 2014 at 9:49 am

        Exactly when did *progressive* Democrats try “so hard to preserve both slavery and segregation”? Please cite your evidence.

        Reply
        • Jeff A   January 8, 2014 at 9:07 pm

          Crickets, as expected.

          Reply
  8. charlesalmon   January 6, 2014 at 11:35 am

    The notion that ONE HAS TO BE GAY to support same sex marriage or they are hypocrites is less than moronic,
    One doesn’t have to be a woman o be a feminist or black to be for equal rights.
    Do your columnists even read their drivel before posting?

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   January 6, 2014 at 11:39 am

      I didn’t make that point or infer it. Try ingesting fewer drugs before you attempt to read something.

      Reply
      • hiroki   January 6, 2014 at 10:25 pm

        “More hypocritical than gays who campaign for same-sex marriage, however, are those who are not, themselves, gay, but have politicized the issue or campaign for same-sex marriage because it clearly makes them feel better about themselves. ”

        I think he’s referring to this, which is definitely suggestive of the notion that one has to be part of the community to campaign for the rights of that particular community. It’s incredibly presumptuous to say that all non-gays who are campaigning for gay rights do so for shady, unspeakable ulterior motives. This (unfounded) claim is nothing more than a red herring that distracts from the more pertinent question of whether the objective of the campaign itself is ultimately a purposeful one.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.