Homosexuals Destroying Marriage?

Nothing bothers me more than seemingly intelligent (and not so intelligent) people making specious arguments in defense of their beliefs, in the guise of some 'empirical truth.' Case in point ' the so-called 'debate' over same-sex marriages. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court took up the issue last year, same-sex marriages have eclipsed all other news items ' save the Democrat primary ' including the conflict in Iraq. Everyone with an opinion ' including myself ' has weighed in on the issue; protests in support and opposition abound; and state legislatures are scrambling to write new laws and change constitutions. But back to the point . . . .

There seem to be as many ad hominem arguments opposing same-sex marriages as there are all-stars for the Yankees to sign (sorry, Yankees fans). However, for brevity's sake, I'll attempt to cover just a few of them.

'The uniqueness of marriage' ' This is a phrase being used by the Campaign For California Families, et al, as they remain strident in their efforts to stop the onslaught of same-sex marriages currently taking place in the Golden State. There is nothing unique about marriage. It has existed for millennia, for varying reasons and in a number of forms, both recognized and unrecognized by respective local governments. Over two million marriages occur every year, with a divorce rate nearly half the marriage rate.

'Homosexuality will increase' ' Since when does a law, or lack thereof, determine one's sexual orientation? One doesn't suddenly become 'gay' because same-sex marriages become legal everywhere. Homosexuality has existed for ages, and will continue to exist independent of its acceptance and/or recognition by the state.

'Opponents of same-sex marriage significantly outnumber supporters' ' So? A few hundred years ago, supporters of slavery likely outnumbered opponents. Did that make those supporters correct? This is one of the most hackneyed, and weakest arguments roaming the media by those supporting a ban on same-sex marriages. This implies the preference of mob rule to force the belief of a majority on a minority.

'Defend the sanctity of marriage' ' Ah, the ubiquitous line of same-sex marriage opponents, and one apparently worthy of a State of the Union address. What exactly is being defended? From whom? This vague phrase is mere groupthink ' implying that there is some sort of 'national marriage' to protect. Since marriage is an agreement among individuals, the sole 'defenders' of marriage are the parties of the marriage ' not the courts, the President, government, or the 'masses.' The parties of a marriage determine its sacredness, or lack thereof; and based on the divorce rates in the United States, it's a flip of the coin.

'The whole concept of marriage will be meaningless' ' This is perhaps the saddest argument in opposition to same-sex marriages. It suggests that these individuals derive the meaning of their marriages from others with whom they disagree. My wife and I have and continually define our marriage on our own terms, regardless of the social trend du jour or majority opinion. If heterosexuals let homosexuals or anyone else define their marriages, then they have deeper issues to worry about.

'It's not God's way' ' This basis for opposition is understandable, as many people believe that their respective religions forbid homosexual behavior. However, what should not be acceptable is the attempt by a majority to impose its religious or moral edicts on the masses. When this happens elsewhere, many here in America call that 'tyranny' and 'oppression.'

The opposition to same-sex marriages has taken many forms, with many positions, including erroneous comparisons to pedophilia ' a separate and sickening issue. While it is fine to disagree on the issue, one must be wary of mob rule -- or democracy, as it were ' determining the fate of a nation. So, are homosexuals destroying marriage? Certainly not. Moreover, looking at the statistics, heterosexuals have been doing a good job destroying their own marriages without assistance.