A few weeks ago, before SF opened the flood gates even wider with the gay marriage controversy, I had written up quite a long paper trying to break down every argument against gay marriage that I had heard up until now.
I decided against posting it primarily because it was mostly something I wanted to write for the value of being able to think through the issue. Last night I was thinking about it again, and I'm still unable to find one even remotely valid reason why gay marriage should be banned.
Interestingly enough, while thinking through this issue, I did come across the understanding why some people are so against affirmative action, given that there are many valid reasons why it should or could be illegal. I was quite happy to be able to do some hard thinking about a problem and come out with a new perspective and understanding on an issue (though, I still support affirmative action, at least in the form of taking race and background in to consideration).
But I'm still unable to find a single "valid" reason why it should be banned. I invite anyone who is against gay marriage to help me understand their viewpoint. Don't worry, I'm not trying to ask you to come up on stage so I can sandbag you. I merely want to understand the rational behind over 50% of my fellow citizens.
Here's a quick rundown of my "responses" to the various argument I've hard in the past:
* immoral - well, maybe that is the case, but our courts have shown in the past that there has to be serious and provable harm caused on society for them to outlaw immoral behavior (take pornography, for instance)
* sanctity of marriage - our divorce rates are incredibly high. Also, we let Brittney Spears get married in Las Vegas because she was drunk: marriage (under government at least) is not sacred.
* destroys the idea of a normal family - I don't know about you, but many of my friends have half brothers, step sisters, step fathers, etc. The normal family appears to have been long gone for many of us.
*those for civil unions but not marriage - if they have the same rights, shouldn't it be the same thing? This feels very akin to "separate but equal"
PS: The reason I brought up and thought about affirmative action when thinking through this issue is that both are appear to be forms of discrimination.
PPS: I give props to President Bush for doing what he thinks he needs to do (even though I think he's a bastard for doing it). At least he has to the guts to make a stand. Kerry and Edwards both piss me off by trying to have it both ways -- they want to still appeal to the 50%+ of the US population, but at the same time they don't want to alienate the 10% either. I can't stand it when Democrats try to sit on the fence like this. I want a president who can make a stand (but also make the "right" stand).