January 12, 2010

I Do, But You Can't

For the past few weeks, my local newspaper has been filled with many letters to the editor decrying gay marriage. Regardless of my personal opinions on the subject... everyone is entitled to put pen to paper (or more likely, fingers to keyboard) and voice their views. After all, that freedom of speech is one of the pros of living in the United States.

However, what has me beside myself is the fact that not a single one of these anti-gay marriage advocates has argued anything that makes a lick of sense - and yet, the letters of support for these particular archaic views keep on coming.

Generally speaking, the letters fall into one of three areas:

1) "Gay marriage is against my religious beliefs, and therefore, should be banned."

I've no argument on what your beliefs may be in this area. If you say you believe homosexuality is a sin, I cannot and will not argue with you. But... worshiping Allah may not be in line with your beliefs. That shouldn't be banned as a matter of law, too, should it? I don't think so.

If your church or synagogue or mosque doesn't want to host a gay wedding, that's perfectly legit to me. But it doesn't necessarily follow that therefore gay marriage shouldn't be allowed in a civil ceremony, any more than two atheists who opt to get married would expect to have their vows read by the local vicar. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to tie the knot.

You need a better argument.

2) "Marriage is to be between a man and a woman, because it is for the purposes of procreation."

To borrow from John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" Really? So, as an anti-gay marriage advocate using this argument, you're also obviously against these two people saying, "I do." -

After all, the AARP crowd isn't exactly prepping to get pregnant anytime soon. And since they have no plans of procreating, then they shouldn't be allowed to get married, right?

The same goes to infertile men and women, as well as those who CAN reproduce, but who have no desire to have kids. Shouldn't their nuptials should be legally banned as well, if I am to listen to you? No?

You need a better argument.

3) "What's next? People marrying their pets?"

I'm not even going to dignify this with a rebuttal.

You need a better argument.

Should this issue be up for debate? Absolutely, as all matters of public policy should. But if you are going to rally the troops to try and kill these bills, please make some valid points, or remove yourself from the discussion.

Thank you.

1 comment:

  1. Great stuff. Not to mention that banning gay marriage as a state institution because of religious beliefs goes against separation of church and state.

    I'm sure the Clifton Journal has similar letters, but I get so angry when I read so many of the arguments each week, that I've had to stop reading the letters every week.