Guest editorial by Gregory Blair, Los Angeles May-June 2004
Who Cares if Gays Marry?
Apparently, most of the planet. In the “free” world (and those quotation marks are very intentional) almost all of us agree that discrimination is ugly and unwanted. Yet, many of us still seem to feel it’s okay to ban gays from having the right to marry. Why is that?
Opponents claim that gay marriage is against definition, against God and leads us down a dangerous “slippery slope” into a bottomless pit from which there is no return. So let’s see if any of that is ultimately true, shall we?
Let’s look at the “definition” argument. This is two–fold. First, proponents of this stance would argue that marriage has always been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is certainly not true. Many cultures around the globe have different variations of what constitutes a marriage. Muslim countries of the Middle East, Asia and North Africa often have accepted polygamous marriages; several central Asian cultures and others often have accepted polyandrous marriages; even gays and lesbians have been married in various types of ceremonies around the nation and the globe. Whether we individually agree or approve of all of those types of marriage is irrelevant; what matters is that we must recognize that the definition of marriage has many permutations. Simply put, the word “marriage” in and of itself is not discriminatory…and neither should we be.
Second, those who would argue “marriage” by definition is an exclusively heterosexual state of being do so by declaring that God intended marriage only for the procreation of children. But this proposition immediately proves fallacious if you look honestly at history. Marriage actually began and continued for centuries with several functions: in addition to procreation, marriage was also used to form and/or affirm alliances, augment familial wealth and status, and maintain inheritance rights. It is a fact that children happen with or without marriage; the two are not necessarily inter-dependant. To argue that homosexuals do not have the right to marry because the partners cannot spawn on their own becomes even more invalid when you consider that if we define “marriage” as only being a right for people who can procreate, then infertile men and women, those beyond their child-bearing years, and people who simply choose not to have children should also not be allowed to marry. Thus, the inanity of the argument becomes even more apparent and unacceptable.
The second main argument those opposing gay marriage make is that homosexuality is against God. The credibility of this stance is shattered with two words: “Whose God?” We are being myopic, egocentric exclusionists if we are to only consider the Judeo-Christian God…or any one God for that matter. What does that say to people living in our countries who have different religious backgrounds and cultures? That’s not to mention Atheists, Agnostics and those who don’t necessarily believe in a god at all. It is uncharitable and unforgivable to impose religious beliefs into the secular arena of the government. Or, more simply put: it is one thing to hold a religious belief; it is quite another to force it on a country. We aren’t supposed to do that in the “free” world; that’s part of what makes it “free”.
Finally, there is the “slippery slope” argument: that if we allow gays to marry, soon we’ll have to accept polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages with children, animals, foliage, aliens etc. I hope I’ve made clear in the previous sentence that anything can have a “slippery slope” argument hung upon it and the slope can be augmented into absurdity. To fear such an absurdity is…well…absurd. In the Unites States, interracial marriage was legally forbidden for many years. People screamed the “slippery slope” argument then. Fortunately, legislators didn’t listen. Not surprising, when that ban was finally removed, flocks of people wanting to marry their pets, sisters, oak trees and lawn chairs did not storm the government to demand marriage rights. It just didn’t happen. And it won’t happen today, either. The “slippery slope” argument is a proven fallacy. How can any intelligent person attempt to use it today? (But I may have answered my own question by including the word “intelligent”.)
In short, marriage in the “free” world today is first and foremost about love; if two adults love each other and want to create a stable union, it is not the government’s place to pick and choose between couples. Whether the license is called a “marriage” or a “civil union”—both heterosexual and homosexual couples should have the equal opportunity to enjoy it if they choose.
Gregory Blair is a Los Angeles based writer. His latest book, “Spewing Pulp”—an iconoclastic, comic caper of one young gay man’s misadventures and musings--is available in bookstores and at www.bbotw.com. (Orders outside the U.S., call 610/941-9999.)
Monthly Gay editorial cartoon
Gay editorial Archives Toronto Whorlpool Magazine.2001
Editorial - Eminem's Fag Jag, April 5-21, 2001
Editorial - Heterosexual Family Pride Day, May 26-June 25, 2001
Editorial - Is Gay Cloning Next? December 1, 2001
Editorial - Online Gay Shoppers January 1, 2002
Editorial - Jerry Fawell takes a step forward February 1, 2002Gay editorial Archives Toronto Whorlpool Magazine 2001
Editorial - Eminem's Fag Jag, April 5-21, 2001
Editorial - Heterosexual Family Pride Day, May 26-June 25, 2001
Editorial - Is Gay Cloning Next? December 1, 2001
Editorial - Online Gay Shoppers January 1, 2002
Editorial - Jerry Fawell takes a step forward February 1, 2002Gay editorial Archives - Toronto Digital Queeries 2002 -
Editorial - Is Gay Pride Day over?
Editorial - Straights in Toronto Gay Bars
Editorial - End of the Rainbow
Editorial - Public Sex
Editorial - Profiting from loneliness
Editorial - Integrity in Toronto gay publications
Editorial - Conformity of the urban homosexual lifestyle
Editorial - Primetimers
Gay editorial Archives - Toronto Digital Queeries 2003 -
Editorial - You know your a Torontonian when..
Editorial - Toronto lgbt community silent on war with Iraq.
Editorial - Whatever happened to Queer Activism in Toronto?
Editorial - The flimsy Case against gay marriage
Editorial - Pride week Toronto 2003
Editorial - Time to pull the plug
Editorial - Toronto has two gay villages!
Editorial - The Ridiculousness of Recruiting
Gay editorial Archives - Toronto Digital Queeries 2004-
Editorial - Homeless gay youth in Toronto
Editorial - Appearance is everything
Editorial - Gay Marriage - The Debate
Editorial - Who cares if gays marry?
Editorial - Why Toronto's gay village is dying
Editorial - Please be yourself- as long as who are your suits me
Editorial - Freedom to chose gay marriage or not?
Editorial - Exploring the Dyke [or Queeriosity]
[ Site Map ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Email ]All pages & content © 2003, Toronto Digital Queeries. Site design/hosting by ivardesign.com