whyroots

 
 

I readily admit it: I don't know how to do it. Perhaps it's because I live four blocks from The Gayest Place on Earth; or because I went to a top 20 gay-friendly college; or because homosexuality—like everything pertaining to sex—was explained to me early on in purely biological (and rational) terms by my parents. No matter the reason, the fact of the matter is that I don't understand how to reason with people who vote against granting equal marriage rights to all citizens on moral grounds.

I can rationalize the legal reasons for why these bans may have passed. (For example: Why should government involve itself in "marriage," an institution born of religion? Marry no one in City Hall—grant only civil partnerships!) So that's no problem. My issue is I don't know how, or even whether it's possible, to argue with someone who holds such extreme moral views about homosexuality. I can say the same thing, really, for someone who believes a zygote to be a human being; or someone who literally interprets the Beatitudes.

It's one thing to dismiss extreme moral views as the result of ignorance, it's another to try to grapple with an otherwise well-informed individual who holds these sorts of views. I read, recently, a blog post by a smart, college-educated girl who went to grade school with me. A week before Election Day, in a blog post titled "What I Stand For," she wrote—

"I believe that legal marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I do not believe it discriminates against homosexual people to defend that time-honored definition. I do not dislike homosexuals; I will not stop being any of their friends. I will not call them names; I will not belittle them. But I will do all that I can to stop them and those who are for it from changing the definition of marriage that is the very basis of society and everything I believe in. A person does not have the right to marry anyone he or she wishes to. We do not have the right to choose anything or anyone. Men cannot marry men. Women cannot marry women. People cannot marry animals. A 40 year-old cannot marry a 12 year-old. A man cannot marry more than one woman, and a woman cannot marry more than one man. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It is a word with a definition that I do not want to have changed."

The equating of consensual, mature, homosexual love to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality! The irrational fear that another person's marriage defines your own! I'm at a loss.

Some have asked me why I trouble with trying to decipher such views, and the reason is that I have been trying to decide whether it's of any use to even try to argue with such people, so as to try to get them to vote differently. Perhaps we ought to explain to them that a gay marriage ban is not really a ban on gay marriage, it's a rejection of marriage equality and a dismissal of human rights.

Over the past few days, I've decided that I will not try to argue with these people. Fortunately for all those who embrace rational thinking and who not only laud but actually enshrine equality, the arc of history and progress is bending in the right direction. The younger generation—my generation!—is overwhelmingly, by 2 to 1, for marriage equality. Every day, more people who grew up ignorant of or prejudiced towards homosexuality are turning around and either discarding those views, or simply acknowledging that this is a human rights issue. While this year California, Arkansas, and Florida did not move forward with the tide of progress, they will. Soon.

Top left: My Election Day voting stickers, unintentionally placed next to a photobooth reel depicting a happy time with friends, one of whom is a queer activist; Directly above: My "No" on Prop 8 vote.

-- Daniela Perdomo

 


Comments

Leonor

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:02:39

Daniela, being of a generation different to yours, and having grown up in a country that is pretty traditional and religious, as an adult woman, I agree with you completely. To say that matrimony can only be between a man and a woman is an attempt to force ideas and opinions on other people and not respect adults' decisions.

It's a pretty difficult topic to deal with, because it involves religious and personal beliefs about what people think is normal or natural. The important thing about all of this is not that we speak about what is natural, but that we speak about it simply not being right to impose our beliefs upon others.

I am sure that if this was not achieved now, it will in the future, as you say, the new generation is going down the right path and this fumble is part of all the change you will achieve. I am proud of you.

 

Nathan Huttner

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:22:59

I wish I could make arguments in the form of: "Declaration. Declaration. Declaration.", and then people would take what I had to say seriously. I hate to say it, but declaring that you have a "moral" quibble with something does not make your argument immune from inspection. Maybe there was more to your friend's argument, but that paragraph alone is pretty vapid.

This is not to denigrate moral arguments that have their grounding in religion. But religious traditions are complex and the locus of moral arguments themselves, conducted within the religious tradition. Many people take an unquestioning look at one interpretation of tradition and then use it as the sole pillar to argue with people who do not accept that tradition. I would suggest that those people make sure they are on solid theological footing before attacking the rest of us with false premises -- premises determined to be false within the tradition itself.

 



Leave a Reply