resurrectionsong

May 25, 2004

Why Gay Marriage Will Succeed, In a Word (StumpJumper)

Gay marriage has been an important topic for me for several years. I have talked it to death both in realtime and here on the blog. Last night, while discussing it with a gay friend, I realized that the entire debate can be reduced to one word. It is in this one, little, four-letter word that the opponents of same-sex marriage will find themselves on the losing side of history. Proponents and supporters of gay marriage use this word every time that they discuss the issue. They consider it to be a cornerstone of the debate. They feel that the debate cannot exist without it. More importantly, it is the reason why this is a civil rights issue. It is the reason why homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. The truth of this lies in the fact that opponents of gay marriage avoid the word. They explain their position and espouse their message of doom-and-gloom while specifically refusing to utter it. They talk around it, they neglect it, and they often deny its obvious relevance and importance to the debate. The word, quite simply, is love.

Posted by stumpjumper at May 25, 2004 10:27 AM | TrackBack

Comments

You're absolutely right SJ... I completely left out the most important reason for the issue, love. I got so caught up in the history and the politics (which is where my head is at most of the time) in my post that I completely neglected love.

Please accept my apology, everyone!

Posted by: Mike Heid at May 25, 2004 11:06 AM

The issue of love has been addressed in many blogs on many occasions. Indeed, one of the differentiating characteristics of the debate is the issue of love. Anti- (or in my case, those who simply deny there is any such possible thing as a "gay marriage") argue that the switch in definition here is from marriage between a man and a woman to an exclusively love-based definition regardless of gender.

That's how polygamy comes into the picture because if love is the salient characteristic, then why not groups in love?

We're not afraid of the love issue: We just understand that we're talking about more than love, specifically, love and sex and the need for our community to regulate the sexual component, lest it find itself up to its ears in bastards. Love is one thing; sodomy is another. You can have one without the other :)

Posted by: IB Bill at May 25, 2004 11:19 AM

Bill's right. Same-sex marriage will fail because you can't boil this issue down to just one word without losing nearly everything of value in the institution of marriage.

Sorry, SJ. I know you'll keep trying.

Posted by: McGehee at May 25, 2004 11:59 AM

What McGehee said. Any serious consideration of same-sex marriage should avoid positing as one of the hypothetical participants an obvious straw man. In my opinion.

Posted by: Jeff G at May 25, 2004 02:13 PM

IB Bill, Nathan: Thank you (espectially Nathan) for illustrating my point.

Jeff G: This was not meant to be a serious discussion, just an observation. I have had the serious discussion on this site several times in the past and was not intending to revisit it.

Posted by: StumpJumper at May 25, 2004 02:40 PM

And you illustrate mine.

Posted by: nathan at May 25, 2004 03:14 PM

SJ: Huh? I directly address the issue of love.

Posted by: IB Bill at May 25, 2004 03:21 PM

"More importantly, it is the reason why this is a civil rights issue."

Thank you for saying that.

Posted by: Jo at May 25, 2004 04:32 PM

{sigh}

Posted by: bryan at May 25, 2004 06:03 PM

(Yeah, I know, intentional fallacy, but I think pokemon that's pretty unavoidable in music, pop at least.) halloween Take for instance an adult who really, honestly jenna jameson likes the music of The Wiggles...there's a certain wwe irony there, isn't there? Or imagine if the St britney spears Matthew Passion was Richard Dawkins's favourite baseball piece of music (plausible enough--scientists go paris hilton for Bach)

Posted by: Michelle Vieth at October 29, 2004 07:02 PM