As former teacher I remember that back in the 1920′s the religious right at time forced upon the American Public Prohibition of Liquor as way to solve all the ills and problems of American Society.

There are a handful of issues which, when confronted with them, sane and decent people become completely irrational. Abortion is one such issue. Gay marriage rights is another. And sadly when people become irrational, sanity and decency go right out the window.

As I have said on this site many times before, marriage is not a religious concept, but rather is a concept co-opted by religions. It is a contract which, in one form or another, pre-dates most modern religions. If a particular religious group chooses to prohibit same sex marriage, refuses to perform marriage unions for same-sex couples, that is absolutely their right and that right is, and should continue to be, protected by law.

Every religion has the right to defend their concept of marriage as they understand it. They do not, however, have the right to dictate that their idea of marriage, their concept of marriage, can be the only form of marriage that exists.

There is a big difference in the traditional marriage ceremony in the Islamic and Jewish faiths. There is a big difference in what is expected of both parties to a marriage in the Christian and Hindu faiths. Every religion has a different idea of what marriage should be, what it should mean, and these ideas can often be conflicting. Yet these conflicts, these differences, are conveniently ignored when there is any suggestion of a same-sex couple marrying. Suddenly marriage becomes a sacred union that can only exist between a man and a woman.

Irrational.

Indeed, if you consider each and every argument against gay marriage, you will find each and every one of them is entirely irrational. If someone could present me with an argument against gay marriage, a reason why same-sex unions should not be allowed, that is not completely and utterly irrational, I would support that argument. Trouble is, no such argument exists.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman only because when the various mainstream religions co-opted the concept into their faiths they decided it should be so. Good for them – but it is irrational of them to believe that they have any right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

And it’s not just the religious arguments that are irrational. So too are the philosophical arguments, those without religious foundation. And yet these sane (and not so sane) and decent (and not so decent) people cannot see the irrationality underlying their arguments. They are blind to it, and in many cases they are completely incapable of opening their eyes.

Now, I can completely understand that some parents have concerns about what their children are exposed to at school. I have no children, yet, but when I do I imagine I will share their concern, though obviously I will be worried about my children being exposed to rather different things, like prejudice, hatred and blind religious bullshit.

That said, I firmly believe it is the responsibility of schools to present children with a balanced viewpoint on a variety of issues, including gay marriage. Do I want my children exposed to the irrational religious and philosophical arguments against gay marriage? No, but I would rather they learned about these things and developed their own opinions than became mini-clones of me.

It is entirely natural for a parent to want to protect their child. It is entirely natural for a parent to be concerned about what their child is exposed to. However, it is entirely irrational to think that you can control everything your child sees, hears, thinks and feels.

What these parents fear is not so much that their children will learn about gay marriage and decide to be gay, but more that they will hear opinions other than their own and actually start to think for themselves – and maybe in the process realise that blind hatred is neither in keeping with their religious/moral values, nor even remotely rational.

Religion = Hate.

Why do I bring up discrimination, however it should be justified? Because it happens, it exists, and ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. People being uncomfortable with the mechanics of sex is -in my humble opinion- a huge part of sexual preference, whether a person be gay or straight or both or neither. So I’m not suggesting we legalize discrimination because of some level of discomfort (and if you interpreted my remark that way, that is your own fault), but I am suggesting that we as communities and as a society at large talk about that. How else can we as a society hope to solve our problems when we patently refuse to talk about what we honestly think about things?

I would think you’d be embarrassed to make such an argument, not least because it confers a certain legitimacy on clearly codified discrimination. In short, apartheid and the Nuremburg Laws and Jim Crow reflect a legal argument of the innate inferiority of a targeted group–and somehow the chop-logic of any of these bodies of law should be respected just because somebody thought it up and wrote it down. No matter that each presented at least some direct conflict with the written law of the respective state. Not only does it carry a legitimacy because it exists, but somehow the act of discrimination requires the targets of discrimination to hold no anger and carry at least partial responsibility for their legally diminished state? How about a NO. It’s not 1977 and Anita Bryant, and the current argument against gay equality has to do with clearly-stated religious bigotry and with “because I said so.” That’s it. Our opponents don’t rely on pictures of drag queens or Dykes on Bikes or leathermen threesomes anymore, because they know that it won’t get them anywhere–and unfortunately and ironically for them, the constant tease of graphic sexual and violent imagery of the Fox TV network (and its influence on other broadcast networks) is a major factor in that erosion. Gays want to join the military and get married–in any other setting, those would be considered *conservative* impulses. Yhitzak, the inevitable consequence of your position is that we somehow have to accept that churches have a legitimate place in determining American civil law–directly against our Constitution. Your argument has already been used to justify discrimination which has been routinely struck down by Republican-appointed judges in the last 20 years. Even our opponents have given up on it, so why do you seem so compelled to dredge it back up?

DaveW exemplifies exactly what is wrong with people in this world: black-and-white thinking in a world that requires shades of gray to function. I know many religious people (religious of ALL varieties) and there is no common view of homo or transsexuality among them. I know people who go to church every day and fight for the rights of GLBT people. I know people who think that anything called god is a total sham and believe that homosexuals are a blight on the planet. I’ve met people who are in between those places. Approving of homosexual marriage or not does not indicate a person’s total decency factor, and if you are willing to judge people based upon their views or solely upon one view, you are just as bad as those that you are railing against. Heterophobia is as damaging to society and the GLBT rights struggle as homophobia is.

In another article about the passage of hate crimes legislation, it states that there are people who are “religiously or philosophically opposed to homosexuality”. This struck me as strange: I understand religious antipathy toward gays: a book with a lot of old stories calls it an “abomination”. This same book sponsors genocide, slavery, treating women like chattel, and the death penalty for wearing cotton and wool at the same time. Fine. I get it. The book says no. Or so we’re led to believe – as a translator who has studied the translation history of that book, it’s surprising that anyone thinks that it could possibly be anything but the word of the translator: the translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English show very clearly that everyone made stuff up along the way. But I’m getting off track…

What I don’t understand, and hope that you might, is the “philosophical” opposition to homosexual civil rights issues. What philosophical school of thought has a convincing NON-RELIGIOUS argument to oppose civil rights for gays? “Political” opposition, as best I can tell, is 100% based on religious views, so political philosophy doesn’t count, as its arguments are justified only by that book. Do you know of any “purely” philosophical reasons against samesexers achieving civil rights parity? I ask because I believe that opponents of parity will soon have to move away from the religious arguments. I want to know what our opponents could possibly base their arguments on if religion is extracted. Science will not back up our opponents. Medicine, psychiatry, ditto. What about philosophy? On what could such “philosophical opposition” be based?

And that brings me to my next question: you say that “decent and sane” people oppose my right to marry. I don’t know that I’m 100% on board with that: these people, acting out of fear, are placing their religious beliefs above my chances for happiness. Is that “decent”? They claim catastrophic results. I’ve lived in Canada for the last 5 years. I grew up in Belgium and England and France. All have had legal gay marriage for some time, and there has been no catastrophe. So, are the folks opposing my marriage really “sane”?

No, John, “decent and sane” people do not oppose things that do not harm, involve, or affect them (especially when there is proof that none of the consequences they fear ever come true).

“Delusional and sane” doesn’t work. “Decent and ignorant” is the probably a more accurate way to describe the people who oppose your right to live with your boyfriend. It is also probably the kindest way to describe these people. I’d rather think they’re ignorant, fearful, powerless – and not just nosy and spiteful.