Public discourse in the United States has always been somewhat shallow. But it seems to have reached the depth of a kiddie pool during the recent debate over gay marriage. Oh, and I use the expression "debate" rather loosely here, mind you. In a proper debate, it is expected that if a participant makes a claim, it should be backed up with either sound reasoning or evidence. Opponents of gay marriage, however, apparently bear no burden of proof when it comes to their rhetoric. Rather, their arguments are publicized by the media despite the fact that they are, so far, wholly unsubstantiated.
Let's just look at the three most prominent of them: 1) That gay marriage opens the door to legalized polygamy, bestiality, incest, and possibly necrophilia (OK, I haven't heard any pundit argue that gay marriage would lead to the living marrying the dead, but it wouldn't surprise me that much if I did); 2) That gay marriage will lead to the collapse of marriage as an institution, thereby dooming society; and 3) That the Bible says it's wrong wrong wrong. All of them, at face value, seem to make some sense; but unfortunately, the moment you give them any thought at all - and it would seem not too many people have - they reveal themselves as entirely devoid of merit.
Consider the first argument. Let's assume, for a moment, that allowing people of the same sex to marry does imply that a man should be permitted to wed his hamster, or his daughter, or possibly both. This implication, however alarming, would be irrelevant, as in this country, liberties are not withheld on the basis of what would occur if they were taken to their logical extreme. If this were the case, the 2nd Amendment, for instance, would be revoked, as if an individual were allowed to own a gun, then what's to stop them from owning a rocket launcher, or a tank, or an atomic bomb? It might take a lot of time and ammo, but someone could kill as many people with a gun as with an a-bomb. So, using the logic of gay-marriage opponents, you'd better not allow people to own shotguns, as pretty soon they'll be asking for ICBMs. In fact, you'd better not allow people to do much of anything, as if all our freedoms were not restricted to some degree, our nation would descend into anarchy. Fortunately, however, we place sensible limits on liberties. And there's no reason to think we wouldn't in the case of marriage as well.
But, even if homosexual marriage doesn't lead to man/horse weddings, it could still lead to society's downfall. That's the second contention of the holy-matrimony-not-homo-matrimony crowd, anyhow. However, other than constructing fanciful scenarios in which heterosexual couples are forbidden to adopt children, and children are taught to marry the same sex in school, they've offered little in the way of support for this claim. The thing is, though - and not to encourage them, but - in theory, there is possibly evidence out there to back up this belief. Several countries - Belgium, the Netherlands, two provinces of Canada - allow gay marriage, and quite a few more - the rest of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland - permit "civil unions" of some sort or another. It wouldn't be hard for them to do a little research, and find out if in fact what they suggest will happen has happened in one of these nations. But, then again, why would they want to bother with boring old facts when they're having so much fun imagining a future in which heterosexuals are so disillusioned by gay marriage that they eat their own children - the ones who haven't been taken away by the state and given to lesbian bikers, that is.
As for the third, and perhaps most central of the anti-marriage faction's arguments - that of the Biblical prohibition of homosexuality. Well, aside from that whole separation of church and state thing, there's the fact that, as Ezra Panda points out, it's not entirely clear that the Bible condemns gays. Yeah, it's right there, the bit about "to lie with a man as with another man is an abomination." But what isn't clear is whether this is meant as a denunciation of homosexuality in general, or whether it regards pedophilia, or homosexual prostitution, or whether it - in the context of the Old Testament - is just an arbitrary means of distinguishing the Israelites from other tribes who would sodomize their enemies after defeating them.
Three arguments. All central to the anti-gay-marriage cause. None particularly valid. Yet still given credence by mainstream media. And all I can do is sit back and ask "How?" and "Why?" when all it would take for truth to prevail is for one reporter, one talking head, one pundit to do the same.
