Gay Marriage: Part 1

What better way to present my views on gay marriage than to debate Christian fundamentalist, Dr. James Dobson, a man who thought the issue important enough to write a whole book about it, Marriage Under Fire. In the book Dobson makes 10 arguments against gay marriage. I will take them one at a time.

Argument #1:
Dobson: The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound… half of today's children are born out of wedlock. It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes. Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements… Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

It sounds to me, Dr. Dobson, that the problem here is divorce, not gay marriage. If you’re concerned about single-parent homes, it seems to me you should be preaching to heterosexual couples. It is marriages “between a man and a woman” that are producing children. It is these marriages that end in divorce over 50% of the time. It is the heterosexual relationship that results in children and single-parent homes.

I personally don’t think a single-parent home is a terrible thing. My five whole-siblings and four of my six half siblings were all raised in single-parent homes, and we’re all decent, moral, professional people with children and step-children of our own. Just because our experience does not follow your narrow model of perfection, does not at all mean that our families are not as valid and loving as yours.

Argument #2:
Dobson: The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey?

Let’s cross that “man marries donkey” straw bridge if and when we get there, hey Doc? The issue here is the right of two people—grown, consenting adults—who love each other having the right to share their experience here on Earth free from persecution. Aside from your irrational fear that such acceptance would result in widespread polygamy and incest, by what right do you deny two consenting adults their happy union? Your biblical values are yours. You have no right to force your faith and its ancient decrees on Americans any more than Islamist hate-mongers and bigots in Tehran have a right to execute homosexuals.

Argument #3
Dobson: An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

Back in 1951, my newlywed parents moved to Madrid, Spain, where my father began medical school. Upon their arrival they met and befriended a young couple Harvey and Camile. Harvey was a medical student, like my father. Before the two men had graduated medical school, Harvey had left his wife Camile for his gay lover, Leo. My parents divorced in 1969, and my father married his second wife. Harvey and Leo were still together in 1969. My father’s second marriage ended in divorce in 1984. Harvey and Leo’s 30-year “marriage” was going strong. My father’s third marriage was celebrated in summer, 1985, and when my father died in 1992, the family of Harvey and Leo was still going strong.

The pursuit of happiness is every man’s unalienable right. There is no guarantee of happiness, and there is no prescription for achieving happiness. Nobody’s answer to the question “How should I live my life?” can be forced upon others. Individuals are free to choose their lifestyle. As long as nobody is harmed, there is no wrong-doing, there is no crime. There is no role for government to play.

Argument #4
Dobson: With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

All gay individuals have one thing in common: heterosexual biological parents. An individual’s sexuality is not determined by the will of, nor the example set by, their parents. It is not learned in school, either. An individual’s sexuality is determined [more or less] by two very human functions: 1. Biology and 2. Choice. If a person’s homosexuality is primarily a function of biology, Dr. Dobson is condemning these “perverts” for characteristics beyond anyone’s control. That’s like persecuting ugly people…not very Christian of you, Doc. If educating young people about legal, gay marriages does anything, it will demystify the life-style and result in greater tolerance across the board. There’s no reason to believe this tolerance will result in more people choosing homosexual relationships. Knowing about the heterosexual relationships of their parents and the wide-spread acceptance of heterosexual relationships in society did not cause gays to grow up straight.

I’m not gay. I never have been. I have always believed choosing my friends and lovers is a choice that belongs to me and the subjects of my affection. If I found some girl attractive and decided to ask her out, for example, I did so. If she didn’t share my interest and said “no,” well…that was that. I moved on. Made other friends. I’m an adult. The company I keep is mine to keep and nobody’s business but mine. The same must be true for all individuals regardless of whether or not their choices would be mine.

Argument #5
Dobson: From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

There is a shortage of loving couples and individuals qualified, willing and able to adopt, not the other way around. Nothing could be more irrelevant to a child than their parents’ sexuality. Do you have any idea what your parents did in the privacy of their bedroom, Doc? Shudder to think of it.

I thought everybody knew this: All any child needs is one, loving, responsible adult. A loving and responsible adult, Doc! The true parent could be anyone, regardless of who the biological parents are. A beautiful, successful American family could be a loving, responsible lesbian and her adopted, Russian baby boy. I know this, because this family exists in reality. I know this family.