The righteous indignation usually exhibited by opponents of gay marriage is apparently meant to compensate for the weakness of their position. Never has there been a more impressive arsenal of flimsy arguments than those put forth by the champions of this discrimination. It does not appear, however, that they could find a credible, well thought out argument that would bear serious scrutiny if their lives depended on it, and it is little wonder that they steer clear of meaningful debate. In seeking legislative endorsement of their bigotry, they display an embarrassing lack of critical thinking. This is reflected in their heavy reliance on commentary about how many other people agree with them, their affinity for citing the written words of people who are not around to answer for their conclusions, and their tendency to dismiss valid criticism or inquiry with such childish rhetorical brick walls as “it’s morally wrong” and “God said so”.
Many of those who blame God for their opinions simply opt for quoting the Bible to support their position. They cite the authority of this collection of writings which contains numerous accounts of incredible events like people turning to salt and rising from the dead, but fail to take any responsibility for establishing its infallibility (or divine authorship) beyond repeated, strenuous assertion. Moreover, their myopia prevents them from recognizing that skepticism is a reasonable response to these accountings. That alone should be sufficient to cast serious doubt on their judgment. With a straight face, they often become condescending toward anyone who does not automatically accept these rather extraordinary events as indisputable historical fact, and they expect everyone to be bound by law to the judgment of men who claimed to be speaking for God centuries ago, but who are no longer around to answer for any irrational prejudices they may have fostered.
Some will prattle on about the values this country was founded on, and invoke the Founding Fathers to justify the intrusion of religious belief into laws. But even assuming the founders would have supported this, why should we be bound by their lapse in judgment? That’s just a case of deferring to the conclusions of a different set of fallible human beings who are no longer around to participate in the debate, or to account for their conclusions – hardly a reasonable approach to making rules that everyone must live by.
For some, the conviction that they are on God’s side is bolstered by a belief that He somehow speaks to them directly. But they lack the humility to even consider the possibility that the voices they hear could be coming from a darker place, and only pretending to come from God. After all, what better way for Satan to get people to enthusiastically do his work for him than to convince them they’re doing God’s work by fostering irrational prejudices? (Of course, this also raises the question of why God bothered with the Bible in the first place, if he could just speak to people directly anyway.)
Supporters of measures like this also display an affinity for manufacturing phony criticisms of their opposition with over-the-top language. How many times have we heard someone accused of “mocking God” when all they’re really doing is challenging someone else’s poorly founded assertions about God’s political views? How many times have we heard someone use an expression like “persecution”, or “Christian bashing”, when all they’re really talking about is well reasoned criticism of religious authoritarianism? How many times have we heard disagreement with their values referred to as a lack of values? How many times has someone used expressions like “the will of the people” or “what society wants” to spin bullying by the majority as something virtuous? How many times have we heard the words “imposing their lifestyle” to refer to people wanting to make choices for their own lives? Precision is clearly not a hallmark of anti-gay rhetoric.
Along similar lines, many like to play fast and loose with language to create the impression of a valid argument. And why not? If you throw around words like “sanctity” and “fabric of society” with enough sanctimonious outrage, a million voting morons will think you have a point. But has anyone ever clearly and specifically articulated how the relationship choices of gays and lesbians interfere with the choices of those who opt for more traditional relationships? And if protecting marriage is the objective, how many opponents of gay marriage would support a ban on divorce with the same enthusiasm? How many would support severe criminal penalties for adultery? If the argument is about procreation, how many of them are prepared to take a clear stand in opposition to marriages between heterosexual couples who are infertile, or who simply have no intention of having children? Many become evasive in response to questions such as these, and like a slippery politician, they almost always try to spin their evasiveness as taking the high road. Consistency and forthrightness are clearly not among their strong points either.
When they start running out of ideas, some will try to use a “slippery slope” argument to defend their position, and ask “where do you draw the line?” as if they’ve scored a slam dunk. But in a free society, this question is easily resolved with two words: “consenting adults”.
And finally, when all else fails, opponents of gay marriage tend to resort to boasting about how the majority agrees with them, or how long their view has been the prevailing one, as if either popularity or tradition is sufficient to establish the merit of a particular viewpoint. But if history teaches us anything, it is that effective indoctrination is all that is necessary to sustain the popularity of a poorly founded opinion. Most people understandably bristle at the suggestion that they’ve been indoctrinated, but in this case, the shoe fits. If you count the number of gay marriage opponents who arrived at their conclusions independently and objectively, from a place of neutrality or skepticism, free from the influence of the biases of of family, friends, or clergy, and can demonstrate that independence of thought by making a credible case against it, based on their own arguments, without resorting to hyperbole, or relying on the written words of others, commentary about how many people agree with them, or claiming to speak for God, you’d be left with a laughably small minority – that is, if you can find any at all.