Disapprove of Gay Marriage? You’re not Hateful, and You’re not Alone


Yes/No

Should gay marriage be legal? Voters in North Carolina say no.

In response to  North Carolina’s referendum decision to ban gay marriage, many pro-gay activists have taken to the world of social networking to get people (especially young people) fired up about their cause. For days, we had to endure a mindless barrage of photos and graphics degrading people for opposing gay marriage. But when someone posted a video that said, in the title, that banning gay marriage is “Legalizing Hate,” I finally decided enough was enough.

Let me make something abundantly clear: I do not hate gay people!

I don’t! My friends don’t. My church doesn’t. My family doesn’t. And yet we don’t think a man should be able to marry a man, or a woman a woman. It’s not a question of “hate” vs. “love.” It’s a question of limits.

The basic argument in favor of same-sex marriage is “If two people are happy together, who are we to keep them apart?”

My response: If people are happy marrying their brothers and sisters, are we to accept that too? What about polygamy? What about pedophilia? And no, I’m not equating homosexuality to any of those things, and I’m not using a “slippery slope” argument. I’m simply asking those who support gay rights if they fully understand the ramifications of their logic.

You have to accept things like pedophilia or polygamy or incest as acceptable if everybody’s happy in the situation. It’s a natural extension of pro-gay logic – that is, the only force in our society that should control the institution of marriage is “who’s happy with whom.”

Ok, so how is this not “slippery slope?” First, for those of you who don’t know, “slippery slope” is a logic fallacy which occurs when somebody takes their argument to an impossible extreme to justify it. That’d be like me saying “If you make gay marriage legal, everyone will become gay.” It’s simply not true!

My argument is different. It represents a logical extension (not a factually false hyperbole) of making “whatever makes you happy” the defining line for marriage in this country.

That’s not a solid basis for any law, and especially not one for homosexual marriage.

If any of you have anything you’d like to add, I’d encourage you to comment below. I want to make this post more of a sort of message board where we can debate this issue in a logical fashion. Before participating, if any of you are friends with Dan Resler on Facebook, go look at the comment chain we have going on the “Legalizing Hate” video he posted, it’s really pretty interesting!

Advertisements
Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Modern Conservative
29 comments on “Disapprove of Gay Marriage? You’re not Hateful, and You’re not Alone
  1. pinkagendist says:

    I see. You feel you have the right to tell other people how to live THEIR lives, you feel something gives you the right to “approve” of other people’s lives?
    Sorry to inform you, you don’t have that right. It’s very possible a number of people you know disapprove of a whole lot of things YOU DO.
    Get over yourself and worry about your own life and stop sticking your nose into other people’s.

    • Let me ask you something. Do you approve of alcoholism (provided nobody is abused, sent to the hospital, etc)?

      • pinkagendist says:

        The word approve implies I’m in a position to give or deny consent. I am not in a position to “approve” of alcoholism (except for myself and my immediate family). I have the right to give my opinion on it, but I certainly don’t have the right to interfere with someone else’s decisions.
        Extremist Muslims don’t “approve” of Christianity. Where does that leave the world if people start interfering with the private, adult, legal choices of other tax paying citizens.

      • By that logic, then, you don’t have the right to tell me I have to approve of/accept homosexuality.

      • pinkagendist says:

        My logic is every tax-paying adult has the right to choose their own path in life, AS LONG AS they’re not interfering with the personal rights of the next person.
        Catholics think sex should only be for procreation, do they have the right to ban birth control for all Americans? Should they vote on it state by state? Would protestants who live in states with catholic majorities be forced to follow Catholic doctrine?

      • If the majority of people thought birth control was a big enough deal to merit a state-by-state referendum, then by all means they should all vote on it. If Protestants think their rights are violated, and the Supreme Court agrees, Catholics will need to create an amendment to the Constitution to get their way. That’s how our government works.

        And if someone says my religious institution is discriminatory (and thus subject to litigation) because it doesn’t accept homosexuality, then my personal rights *are* being interfered with, and I have the right to state my mind on the issue and approve or disapprove of the actions of those who got us to this point.

      • pinkagendist says:

        What you seem to not understand is that rights are INDIVIDUAL rights. You have the right to follow your religion, you don’t have the right to make other people follow your religion. Just like Muslims don’t have the right to make your wife wear a veil, or prohibit you from eating pork. They have the right to apply their religion and life philosophy TO THEMSELVES, not to you.

      • Other people don’t have the right to enforce their beliefs on my religion then, do they? So my church can’t be sued or attacked or discriminated against if it doesn’t approve of homosexuality, refuses to marry gays, etc.

      • pinkagendist says:

        Absolutely. You are 100% correct. No one can force their views on you or your church, and in return you should offer your fellow citizens the same respect.
        Apply your rules to yourself. let your church apply its rules to its members- but don’t push those rules on people who don’t share them.
        If there are people who aren’t a part of your ideological group, let them do their own thing, whether they’re Jews, Atheists or whatever.

      • Does my church then have a right to voice it’s disapproval of homosexuality, in the fullest definition of the term “voice” – lobby, buy ads, etc.?

      • pinkagendist says:

        In my opinion that crosses the line into interfering with other people’s right to freedom of religion.
        The day any church tries to make their doctrine part of the law, they’re interfering with people’s rights to not be a part of that religion.
        Equally, I don’t think Mosques should have the right to try to impose Sharia Law, or make women wear veils. And Orthodox Jews should also not try to ban pork. If they want let them wear veils and not eat bacon- but don’t mess with my bacon.

      • Well, if not to change a law but public perception about an issue, is such lobbying ok?

      • pinkagendist says:

        Absolutely. I think the exchange of ideas is great. My only caveat is that we apply our ideologies to ourselves. I think not eating bacon is crazy. There is no circumstance in my life where I would consider cutting it out of my diet. It’s a pleasure I give myself once a week, Sunday morning breakfast. Orthodox Jews are welcomed to convince as many people as they like not to eat bacon, but they CANNOT mess with my Sunday morning bacon 😉

      • Alright then haha. Then by all means I will continue to tell people that homosexuality should not be acceptable in a marriage, and you can keep eating your bacon. If the laws change, they change because of what the people think. Let them decide, and the constitution judge.

  2. Mr. C says:

    Well, the basic argument for gay marriage is not that, “If two people are happy together, who are we to keep them apart?” That is far too vague to be the basis of a law. The general thought is that we shouldn’t have religion regulating the law. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason people don’t want gay marriage to be approved is that they feel it is unnatural, because somewhere in their book of religion it says that God or Allah or whomever disapproves. It seems just as wrong for me to say, “Here’s how the government will make your religion handle marriage.” as it is for you to say, “Here’s how religion will make your government handle marriage.” You could thus argue that marriage is part of a religious institution, however that wouldn’t be fully correct. The benefits associated with marriage align it to be more a part of a governmental association. Plus, with the way Christianity is set up, it is entirely possible that branches of Christianity accept and approve of gay marriage. It would be wrong to FORCE a church to perform a gay marriage, but it there were a church willing to perform the gay marriage I see no problem. Anyway, that’s the religious component. I’ll deal with social equality later, as now I have to go somewhere. I’m a busy guy

    • Haha I understand that your busy and I agree with you mostly. My basic point is it’s wrong to call people “hateful” if they don’t approve of gay marriage, and that you can’t make other people accept it. We, for example, reject incest (even if the woman is sterile, say) because it too is “unnatural,” “unethical,” etc. So society has to draw a line somewhere. Until someone can genuinely convince me otherwise, that line is at gay marriage.

      • Mr. C says:

        Well I can’t speak for others, but to be totally honest I just say that those who reject gay marriage are “hateful” because it furthers my own agenda. It’s so easy to get people fired up about things they are passionate about. Look at Fox News. Half the stuff they spit out in their pieces are just ranting in a way that will get people fired up, angry, and wanting to be active for their cause. You can’t say, “Hey, those people are blocking are agenda. They are nice people and I can see where they are coming from, but I think we should try and do the opposite of what they are doing.” That won’t motivate anyone. What you say is, “The religious right is imposing their ridiculous morals on the rest of society out of hatred and spite for beliefs that are different from theirs. We must rise from that oppression and work towards a future where ALL people are equal.” It’s nothing personal and both sides do it. It’s not really even worth getting angry about anymore, with all the people who do this nowadays (see attack ads and the republican presidential primary). I believe Ad Hominem is the correct name for the fallacy. The important thing is, the people making the decisions know all of this but the people voting for them do not.

        And, to be fair, the rejection of incest is significantly less religious based. We aren’t banning incest because the bible says so.

      • Well we ban incest for health reasons, but if the woman is sterile then it does become an ethical debate. You’re right in pointing out that both sides engage in Ad Hominem, but both the Axis and the Allies killed civilians on a mass scale. Doesn’t make it right.

  3. Here it is says:

    The basic argument in favor of same-sex marriage is “If two people are happy together, who are we to keep them apart?”

    Wrong? The argument is that no one, not the government, not people like you, should tell people how to live their lives.
    It’s annoying to have to listen to close minded people try to make sure other humans, people, don’t have rights they should have.
    We all know same-sex marriage should be legalized. You even know that. You’re just scared. But there are going to be gays if you like it or not. Maybe if you try to keep them from being happy and living their life the way they want to, then you should be taken away rights too. Try to understand, people are different from you.

    • Can you give me one solid reason to back up your assertion of “You’re just scared.” You ignore my logic and engage me in more Ad Hominem. You belittle me by saying that I don’t undestand that people are different. You are condescending with your diction. You assert that I am a bully when you have all the hallmarks of one.

      In response to your claim that the government should not tell people how to live their lives, at least to some degree, I say that the government was created to set limits on acceptable behavior (social contract). The government says polygamy and incest are unacceptable, but you and I both agree that this limitation is necessary. You claim the line should be drawn just after gay marriage, I say it should be before it. You offer no reason to move the line, other than “The government can’t tell people how to live their lives,” which is what it does with the whole “line” concept, which we both support.

      We both agree there should be limits to behavior. We differ in where the limits exist. You haven’t offered me a good reason to move the limit, besides that we shouldn’t have one. But that’s a broken syllogism because there are behaviors that you also find unacceptable. Thus allowing gay marriage is an arbitrary and unjustified move, QED.

  4. kelsfro says:

    For me, I do not have a problem with a homosexual couple who wants to have the same tax benefits, etc. as a married couple. My problem is with using the word “marriage.” The word comes from the bible and is a holy term used to describe a contract between a MAN and a WOMAN. Yes, the term is holy and is used in our law system. But why can’t a homosexual couple be joined in a union? I don’t understand why people are having an uproar with that word if they are receiving the same benefits?

    • Oh, I totally agree with you. I have no problems with a civil union. But I don’t want people calling me ignorant, afraid or a bigot because I don’t approve of homosexuality. Marriage is a fundamentally religious institution, despite what some people claim, and if I don’t have a right to force my beliefs on other people, they can’t do the same to me.

      Civil unions aren’t religious in anyway, so I’m fine with them. But churches have been sued for discrimination in the past, and I don’t want them open to litigation for standing up for their beliefs.

    • Here it is says:

      I don’t think anyone, like you said, can deny the fact ‘marriage’ is from the Bible. And like you said, is used in our law system. That in itself should be against the law. But they do use it, therefore can not be denied by anyone. And just because two people are gay and want to get married, doesn’t mean they are not religious. There are many part of the Bible people just ignore. You can be Christian and gay. Therefore, since marriage is in their religion, they should not be denied the right.

  5. Here it is says:

    Now that should be what the debate is about.
    Not if they can or not.
    Because you bring up a very valid point.

    • If there would be no way for a religious institution to be sued or in another way penalized for refusing to marry a gay couple, then I’d be ok with “gay marriage” in that sense. But since almost no church would perform the marriage (those that do probably wouldn’t be considered truly Christian by most people’s standards), you basically have to have the government do it. Then that becomes a civil union, which is ok. But it’s not gay marriage in the true sense of the word “marriage” – it’s just a legal union.

  6. […] short while ago, I put forth what is basically a legal argument against gay marriage. I originally thought another post on the subject simply wasn’t needed, but so many of you […]

  7. IM says:

    I share your views on the matter, but these folks are dead set to make this happen. Folks like us should become much more aggressive, almost to the point that the political structure will drop them and consider our view.

    • I’d like to think this blog as a part of the start of the “pushback,” if you will. Conservatives can’t stay silent, and we can’t cede the Internet to liberals. Is gay marriage inevitable? We’ll see. I think the answer is no, but the will of the people will most likely be the decider.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: