My Facebook feed is currently a confusing mass of hundreds of red equal signs. This display of love and support of the gay community from hundreds of my online friends is heartwarming and uplifting to say the least. I go to a liberal university and I have rarely felt unsafe or victimized as a queer individual. I know that gay marriage will eventually be federally legalized. I know that my community will not forever be considered second-class citizens by our country. But in the sea of red equal signs, I have been deeply irked by the one green pause sign, resolutely defying the change that our country is nigh on adopting.
This bastardization of the gay rights advocacy campaign belongs to a friend from elementary school: a girl who I had always thought fondly of. However, her timeline is currently splattered with a slew of Christian propaganda. I have made my one comment in defense of myself and my right to love, but I would like to bring to the attention of you readers the arguments of this girl and her religious community. More infuriating than the symbolism of her profile picture was the content of this article. It is hard to read, but I would like to take my opportunity to respond to it in detail here.
- All states recognize marriages between heterosexual couples. These marriages are not at all contingent on religion. Atheists receive the same marital recognition as Christians do. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is not a religious institution. It is a social institution. If you want to ban it from the gays on the basis of discordance with religious beliefs, have fun banning marriage from those who do not believe in God or have had premarital sex.
- Giving the freedom of marriage and civil rights to the gay community in no way restricts the freedom of other Americans. Political correctness is not “bullying,” it is necessary for us to display decency and respect to people who are different from us. My right to marry is not “trampling on your religious liberty.” You can feel free to abide by any God-fearing rules you read in whatever book you deem holy. I am not asking you to restrict your personal behavior, and you have no right to restrict mine.
- I am horrified that this article says “no matter how much we encourage or show compassion for homosexuals, it will not be enough to ward off the charges of hatred and homophobia.” Please do not kid yourself into thinking that you are being charitable to the homosexual community. You are in no way encouraging our rights. Your argument is literally to preserve the sanctity of the label of “marriage” and that you would rather give full rights to a “civil union”. So, what that sounds like to me is “separate, but equal.” How did that work out for us last time, Christians?
- “There will be a soft tyranny that grows as the power of the state increases, a growth that is intrinsic to the notion of gay marriage itself.” I have read and reread this sentence a dozen times. I have yet to understand what the hell it is trying to say. But anyone who equates marriage rights with tyranny needs to get themselves in order.
- Sometimes Christians forget that the church and state are separate in this country. The state does not allot certain rights to those who partake in a religious ceremony. Marriage carries legal connotations and marital rights are allotted to those who partake in a state-sanctioned act of commitment. Marriage is, indeed, a religious sacrament to Christians, but it is not to the government.
- The slippery slope arguments that relate gay marriage to incest and polygamy are just as ludicrous and invalid as any other slippery slope argument. We learn about logical fallacies in high school. This debate is about discrimination in regards to sexual orientation, not about anything else.
- “Our culture is fickle. It says ‘live and let live’ when it comes to the most powerful human bonds and the most enduring institutions, but it insists on protecting the ‘other’ with fundamentalist zeal when it comes to trans fat, cigarettes, and carbon emissions.” I’m sorry. You seem to be confusing scientifically proven risks to public health and your personal comfort level. Not really sure how you can logically equate those two things.
- The paragraph beginning with “The unspoken secret…” is nothing short of horribly offensive and ignorant. The term “gay bowel syndrome” is derogatory and obsolete. It doesn’t mean anything anymore, as it is not a real syndrome. Talk about political incorrectness. STDs are not exclusive to the gay community. We are not introducing new diseases to humanity. And, how, may I ask, is a gay man’s contraction of HIV/AIDS harmful to a straight, God-fearing Christian? I’ll let you in on another secret, Gospel Coalition, you have to have sex with us in order to contract those. Also, stereotyping gays as promiscuous infidels is one of the worst parts of this article. I’m pretty sure in a preceding paragraph, the author was complaining about being stereotyped and accused of being hateful and homophobic. Sounds like a double-standard to me.
- What studies confirm the statement “Kids do better with a mom and dad”? Those studies compare two parent households to single parent households. Good job on citing any of those “hundreds.” Let’s legalize gay marriage first, and then feel free to study how the children of those households fare.
- Why does the Christian church feel the need to distinguish gender in parenting? I’m pretty sure a lot of Christian women would be rather unhappy if the church told them they must quit their jobs and devote their lives to becoming homemakers upon the arrival of her firstborn. Surprise! It’s a new world and gender is a construct.
- This call for equal rights is not an “experiment in sexual freedom.” Homosexuality has been referenced since the beginning of recorded history. Sounds like human nature to me. Societal attitudes have alternated between respect and hatred, reverence and fear. But marriage equality is no more an “experiment” than the abolishing of slavery. It is a necessity for equality among all people.
- The only thing Neanderthal-like about this situation is the horrendous use of logic that is being employed in articles like this one.
I think it is clear to see that this article falls short of any legitimate argument. Those who are already in agreement with these opinions will blindly support these positions. I hope we would be hard pressed to find a neutral party who could be legitimately convinced or coerced by the atrocious logic found here. We will legalize marriage equality, and one day, this article will be an example of the horrible bigotry that formerly plagued our country. If only that day could be tomorrow.
One last thing: Fuck you, Kevin DeYoung.
Stay hot and keep it messy,