With news that a Baltimore judge has ruled that "Maryland's law banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory and 'cannot withstand constitutional challenge,'" I thought it was a great time to completely demolish the most frequent arguments made by anti-gay-marriage people on this subject. Warning: the following will contain graphic, sexual language, so if you are easily offended read no further. Anyway, here are the main arguments against gay marriage and homosexuality in general (since, in my view, the root of opposition to gay marriage is usually homophobia, to one degree or the other) - demolished!
1) That it "goes against the considered wisdom of 5,000 years of human civilization," as certain conservatives like to repeat over and over again.
This is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter nonsense. As almost everyone knows, homosexuality was rampant in Ancient Greece (776-323 BC), with adult men normally taking adolescent boys - slave and free - as partners. Same-sex love was even enshrined into the Greeks' religion and mythology, with famous same-sex pairings including Achilles and Patroclus, Zeus and Ganymede, and many others. Then there was, of course, Alexander the Great and his many male lovers, including Alexander's boyfriend Hephaestion.
Lest anyone think that the Greeks were an exception, same-sex relationships were common in: ancient China; ancient Japan, including among the Samurai warriors; ancient Rome, including among 14 of the first 15 Roman emperors; and Melanesia, where "many native cultures employed boy insemination rites integral to coming-of-age rituals lasting from mid- to late childhood, as documented in the writings of Gilbert Herdt."
Oh, and by the way, slavery was part of the "considered wisdom of 5,000 years of human civilization," so that makes it right?" So much for this argument.
2) That it says, RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE, that homosexuality is a SIN!
Well, not exactly. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes there's just no way to tell what exactly is being condemned (let alone its relevance to today's society). For instance, there is considerable debate among scholars as to the nature of the relationship between David and Jonathan, with "a growing minority of scholars...argu[ing] that this was a sexual relationship." There are also various interpretations regarding the relationship between Ruth and Naomi.
True, the Bible condemned homosexuality (e.g., Leviticus 18:22. However, there is debate about the meaning of translations from Hebrew, particularly regarding what exactly was being forbidden (e.g., anal sex only?). In addition, one neeeds to consider the fact that the Bible also condemns a number of other sexual practices - intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, nudity, masturbation, birth control, naming sexual organs - that are generally accepted today. Furthermore, the Bible accepts sexual practices - polygamy, sex with slaves, marriage of girls at 11-13 years old, prostitution, marriage of a woman to one of her husband's sons or brothers after her husband's death - that most of us find heinous today. And it's important to note that the Bible also condemned other acts - eating meat with blood in it (Leviticus 19:26), sowing your field with two kinds of seed, putting on a garment made of two different materials (Leviticus 19:19), etc., etc. Obviously, almost nobody observes these laws any more.
Meanwhile, the condemnations of homosexuality are mixed with other messages. Jesus, for instance, said absolutely nothing about homosexuality, although it is significant that he deemphasized and even rejected the "purity system" emphasized by the Pharisees.
Then there's the story of Sodom, which is frequently used as the basis for anti-gay sentiments. One problem with an interpretation focused on homosexuality is this: according to Ezekiel 16:49, Sodoms' sins were not "sodomy" but "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness...in her and in her daughters." In addition, the people of Sodom are condemned because they did not "strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Finally, the people of Sodom were "haughty." (hmmmm...sound familiar in Bush's Homeland?)
Regarding the "abomination" the people of Sodom committed, Biblical scholars and Christians groups are divided on the meaning. It could have been same-sex intercourse, of course, but it also could have been any number of "abominations" mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures (eating shellfish or snakes, women wearing men's clothing, a man remarrying his former wife, etc.). It is also possible that what is condemned is the act of homosexual rape, not that of consensual homosexuality. The point is, nobody knows for sure, although some people - Pat Robertson, for instance - claim to be the only ones who truly understand the word of God. But it's simply not that simple, especially given the various translations that have been passed down from the original Scriptures.
3) That it's "sick" or "perverted."
This is in direct opposition to almost every recognized expert on the subject and contrary to the formal positions of: the American Psychiatric Association, the American Law Institute, the American Bar Association, the World Health Organization, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and many other such groups. Enough said on this subject, except to mention that much unhappiness in gay people comes about as a result of societal oppression and resultant "closeting" behavior. Hence, cases like Lonnie Latham, an Oklahoma preacher who vehemently opposed gay rights before turning out to be gay himself. Hmmm...
4) That it's not "natural."
Wrong again. Many studies have shown that homosexual behaviour is common among animals, especially in species close to humans on the evolutionary scale, such as the great apes. According to National Geographic, "actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans." And this is particularly interesting:
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.
Interestingly, according to National Geographic, "such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield." In other words, homophobia has actually prevented scientists from studying animal behavior for homosexuality, fueling the very argument made by homophobes that "homosexuality is unnatural." Verrrry clever.
5) That it's simply "digusting," "repulsive," etc.
Let's be blunt here; this is all about anal sex. Oh sure, it's also a little bit about oral sex, and possibly other sexual practices people find disgusting (when they're not secretly turned on by them or even engaging in them on the "down low" themselves). This whole "argument," if it can be called one, revolves around the concept that there are "in holes" and "out holes," and also that anything to do with excretion, especially through the anus, is disgusting. Hey, I warned you at the beginning that this would be sexually explicit!
Anyway, the bottom line here is that this whole line of "reasoning" is completely unscientific and, to be blunt, wacky. For starters, it's obvious that there aren't clear "in holes" and "out holes" - the mouth both takes in and expels things, as does the vagina. What's the point here, beyond "I find Behavior X to be disgusting?" I have no idea.
Second, it's important to note that oral and anal sex are common among heterosexuals. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), "Among adult males 25-44 years of age...90 percent have had oral sex with a female, and 40 percent, anal sex with a female." According to the NCHS, "the proportions who have had sexual contact with an opposite-sex partner were similar" among women. Meanwhile, "[t]hree percent of males 15-44 years of age have had oral or anal sex with another male in the last 12 months." In other words, a lot more heterosexuals are having oral and anal sex than homosexuals.
The overall point here? That if you're going to base public policy on what is "disgusting" or "repulsive," you're inevitably going to run into major problems with consistency. Based on the statistics mentioned above, it would appear that nearly all heterosexuals have had either oral or anal sex at some point in their lives. Given that, how on earth can they condemn others who do the same? As Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..."
6) That you're not a real man (or woman) if you're gay
Once again, let's be blunt. When homophobes rail against gay marriage, or gays in general, many of them are simply taking us back in a time capsule to the glories of 7th grade. Remember? Raging hormones. Zits - and tits - breaking out everywhere. Pubic hair. Menstrual cycles. Body odor. Wedgies. And, of course, a bunch of 13-year-old boys desparately trying to prove that they are "men," not sissy boys. Thus, everyone's a "fag." And at this (primitive) level of discourse, masculinity is equated with (hetero)sexuality.
Well, somebody should have told that to Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Richard the Lion Hearted, Michelangelo, Peter the Great, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Gertrude Stein, Bessie Smith, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, etc., etc.
7) That gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family.
This one's simply laughable. According to one recent study, the top ten reasons for divorce in 2004 were: 1) Extra-marital affairs - 27%; 2) Family strains - 18%; 3) Emotional/physical abuse - 17%; 4) Mid-life crisis - 13%; 5) Addictions, e.g. alcoholism and gambling - 6%; 6) Workaholism - 6%; 7) Business problems - 4%;
8) Other (communications problems, growing apart) - 4%; 9) Decision linked to a personal choice (eg. only one partner wanting children) - 2%; and 10) Problems of a sexual nature, loss in income (all less than 1%).
Hmmm...don't see "gay marriage" in there. In fact, I don't see "homosexuality" in there at all, unless it's included in the less-than-1% "problems of a sexual nature" category. Just for argument's sake, let's say that homosexual attraction accounts for ALL of that category. That would still place homosexuality under 1% as a cause of divorce. And gay MARRIAGE, per se, would be far lower than that (e.g., that gay marriage ITSELF caused or contributed to the divorce). My guess is that we're talking 0.5% or lower for ALL homosexuality-related causes, meaning that 99.5% of heterosexual divorces has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, let alone the lure of "gay marriage." What a joke.
8) That marriage is about procreation and ensuring the continuation of Homo...Sapiens, and gays don't procreate.
Ha ha ha hahahahahaha. OK, besides the fact that world is wildly overpopulated - 6 billion, 7 billion, do I hear 8 billion people - the last time I checked, just because you're gay doesn't mean your sex organs don't work. Breaking news! Breaking news! Gays can (and do) procreate! Video at 11! Oh, and not only can (and do) the procreate - via artificial insemination, for instance - they also are perfectly capable of adopting orphaned and abandoned children who desparately need homes. I know, I know, it's a horrible thing to tear a child out of a perfectly lovely Romanian hellhole...er, orphanage and plunk him or her down with a couple of rich, highly educated, doting (gay) parents. But you know what? It happens, and from what I can gather, the children do just fine for themselves, thank you.
9) Which brings us to the last argument, that two same-sex parents don't represent the optimum environment in which to raise children.
That's right, the same people who argue that it's terrible for a child not to have TWO parents - a mommy and a daddy - gets their knickers all in a twist if those two parents happen to be two mommies or two daddies. Why? Again, reality and science intrude into the world of homophobia, an American Sociological Review paper (2001) concluding that the "body of research, almost uniformly, report[ing] findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents." In addition, "every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children's mental health or social adjustment."
In other words, so much for THAT argument - and all the other ones as well. Does anyone have any more justifications for homophobia that I can demolish? This is easier than the proverbial "shooting fish in a barrel," though, so you might not want to do that.
[UPDATE: One commenter over at Daily Kos makes the excellent point that "Massachusetts has gay marriage and has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Arizona and Nevada forbid gay marriage and have two of the highest divorce rates in the nation. If gay marriage were really a threat to straight marriage, one would think Massachusetts would be hiring family court judges in droves."]
[UPDATE #2: Another commenter at Daily Kos relates the following story.
In the late 70's some researchers here at UCSB did a study on Western Gulls on Anacapa Island, and noticed a pair of lesbian gulls who had apparently paired up for life, went through the regular annual courtship, nesting, and laying eggs.]But what mystified the researchers most of all was that occasionally they would hatch and raise a real chick. After much theorizing they found the answer. One of the two would occasionally "cheat" on her mate with a male, then come back to hatch and raise the chick with her female partner.
I found this hilarious. It was the first time I heard of animal homosexuality, and I was so tickled by the story, as it just went against all of the "known" truths spouted out by our ever so loving right-wing Christians.