I hesitated before commenting here, but so far there are few responses from people who do not support gay marriage themselves, and I respect xiphias's request for dialogue.
To me, it has nothing to do with Leviticus or religion. I am mostly nonobservant. I do not consider gay sex "icky" or an "abomination," and what people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my (or the government's) business. I especially do not consider gay people icky. People are people, and engaging in taunts or violence against gay people is utterly unconscionable.
I am not in favor of gay marriage.
Marriage is a social institution with a long history. It is an institution which I revere and want to protect. Marriage, in Western tradition, has never meant a ceremonial union between two persons of the same sex. That's simply not what it means. You can call it a marriage, but you could also call a cucumber a marriage. That still doesn't make it one. To call a union between a same-sex couple a marriage confuses the concept of marriage, which is already under siege in this country. It stretches the definition enough to break it. That is why I believe that allowing gay couples to marry harms marriage as an institution in this society -- because it takes a concept that has always meant one thing and forces it to mean something else. While I strongly oppose the anti-gay hysteria of the religious right, I do know what they mean when they say they want to "defend" marriage.
Of course, many other things in today's society are harming marriage. Celebrity scandals, casual infidelity, abandonment of children, marriage or divorce entered into with no more thought than buying a new pair of shoes -- those things degrade marriage. The vast majority of things that harm marriage today are being done by straight people. Believe me, I'd stop those things, if I could. But even if I can't stop some kinds of harm, that doesn't mean that I want to let another kind of harm slip by.
So what about loving, monogamous gay couples who want to spend their lives together? Yes, I know some. They do not degrade marriage, and I'd rather see those couples married than the heterosexual celebrity couple who is going to divorce next week. I have heard first-hand accounts of the problems and legal hassles that gay couples face, and I am sympathetic. Although it would be a major change, it is probably time for this society to legalize civil unions. But marriage is something different. Marriage is sacred, and if people don't realize that, I am deeply uneasy about letting them marry. I have often felt deeply frustrated by the insistance of some gay people I know that anything less than a government-recognized marriage is not enough. If gay couples would accept something that gave all the legal rights of marriage but was called a civil union, a lot of people would be a lot less upset, and they'd have a far better chance of gaining their point. Heck, if civil unions were on the ballot, I'd vote for them with a clear conscience. But if gay marriage was on the ballot, I'd vote against it. Because that's not what marriage is.
There is one more argument that influences me. I'd like to think it's paranoid, but I can't convince myself of that. If the definition of marriage is expanded to allow gay couples, what comes next? I'm not among those who think there's a real danger of someone being allowed to marry a dog or a chair. But some of my friends who support gay marriage have frankly told me that they also support the idea of polyamorous marriages, which I would find significantly more unacceptable than a monogamous marriage between two men or two women. And the liberals who are my friends have an unnerving tendency to speak as if all forms of social behavior are equally okay. I'd like to, but I can't entirely dismiss the "slippery slope" argument as mere paranoia.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-06 12:53 am (UTC)To me, it has nothing to do with Leviticus or religion. I am mostly nonobservant. I do not consider gay sex "icky" or an "abomination," and what people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my (or the government's) business. I especially do not consider gay people icky. People are people, and engaging in taunts or violence against gay people is utterly unconscionable.
I am not in favor of gay marriage.
Marriage is a social institution with a long history. It is an institution which I revere and want to protect. Marriage, in Western tradition, has never meant a ceremonial union between two persons of the same sex. That's simply not what it means. You can call it a marriage, but you could also call a cucumber a marriage. That still doesn't make it one. To call a union between a same-sex couple a marriage confuses the concept of marriage, which is already under siege in this country. It stretches the definition enough to break it. That is why I believe that allowing gay couples to marry harms marriage as an institution in this society -- because it takes a concept that has always meant one thing and forces it to mean something else. While I strongly oppose the anti-gay hysteria of the religious right, I do know what they mean when they say they want to "defend" marriage.
Of course, many other things in today's society are harming marriage. Celebrity scandals, casual infidelity, abandonment of children, marriage or divorce entered into with no more thought than buying a new pair of shoes -- those things degrade marriage. The vast majority of things that harm marriage today are being done by straight people. Believe me, I'd stop those things, if I could. But even if I can't stop some kinds of harm, that doesn't mean that I want to let another kind of harm slip by.
So what about loving, monogamous gay couples who want to spend their lives together? Yes, I know some. They do not degrade marriage, and I'd rather see those couples married than the heterosexual celebrity couple who is going to divorce next week. I have heard first-hand accounts of the problems and legal hassles that gay couples face, and I am sympathetic. Although it would be a major change, it is probably time for this society to legalize civil unions. But marriage is something different. Marriage is sacred, and if people don't realize that, I am deeply uneasy about letting them marry. I have often felt deeply frustrated by the insistance of some gay people I know that anything less than a government-recognized marriage is not enough. If gay couples would accept something that gave all the legal rights of marriage but was called a civil union, a lot of people would be a lot less upset, and they'd have a far better chance of gaining their point. Heck, if civil unions were on the ballot, I'd vote for them with a clear conscience. But if gay marriage was on the ballot, I'd vote against it. Because that's not what marriage is.
There is one more argument that influences me. I'd like to think it's paranoid, but I can't convince myself of that. If the definition of marriage is expanded to allow gay couples, what comes next? I'm not among those who think there's a real danger of someone being allowed to marry a dog or a chair. But some of my friends who support gay marriage have frankly told me that they also support the idea of polyamorous marriages, which I would find significantly more unacceptable than a monogamous marriage between two men or two women. And the liberals who are my friends have an unnerving tendency to speak as if all forms of social behavior are equally okay. I'd like to, but I can't entirely dismiss the "slippery slope" argument as mere paranoia.