Trivialities of Gay Marriage

Why would people oppose something as trivial as gay marriage? The amount of time that is spent discussing this topic is staggering. The amount of energy that is spent opposing this civil right is equally astounding.

In the face of the actual problems that mankind faces at this moment: poverty, hunger, disease, pollution, ignorance, illiteracy, sexism, tyranny, warfare, et cetera, civilised society stands even more dumbstruck by the intolerance that is displayed in opposing this issue.

In order to get a better understanding of the objections that are made by the people who are opposed to two consenting adults expressing their love in front of their family, friends and society at large, let us consider the following questions:[1]

Why do people oppose gay marriage? –

Appeal To Tradition (“Sanctity of Marriage”)

Is it because of the assumption that only men and women can marry each other?
In 1967, less than fifty years ago, sixteen U.S. States still forbade interracial marriage on the grounds that the “sanctity of marriage” should not be violated. Nowadays, similar arguments are used to prevent gay people from getting married. This appeal to tradition has been recognised for the rhetorical fallacy it is for some time now.[2]

Is it because of the assumption that only one man and one woman can produce offspring by having sex?
Because of our advanced understanding of human procreation, it is possible for people to use a surrogate mother who carries an embryo created by in vitro fertilisation; it is also possible for people to use a sperm, egg or embryo donor. For some time now, procreation has not been necessarily about just one a man and one woman.

Is it because of the assumption that, regardless of sexual intercourse, only one man and one woman combined can produce offspring?
Thanks to our accomplishments in the field of genetics it is possible nowadays to create a human being out of the genetic material of one human as well as out of the combined genetic material of three humans.

Is it because of the assumption that only a marriage can produce offspring?
Currently, over 40% of the children born in the USA are born “out of wedlock”. And again, thanks to our extensive knowledge of biology, we know that a marriage certificate is not a prerequisite for the fertilisation of the ovum.

Is it because of the assumption that a marriage should produce offspring?
In that case, should the government not grant marriage licences to all people who are physically incapable of having children? And should this also apply to people who do not want children?

“I’m modern. I say ‘black’ instead of ‘coloured’. I think women are a good thing. I’ve got no problem with gays; most of them are very well turned out… especially the men.” – Peter Mannion The Thick Of It

Is it because of the assumption that gay marriage (and everything related to it) is unnatural?
At the time of writing, 642 species of animal have been observed having homosexual activity.[3] As for the narrower view that gay love would be “unnatural to human beings”, thanks to genetics, we know this is not true.

Is it because of the assumption that gay marriage is not a (civil) right?
In 1959, the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote in her book Dissent “The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed.”

Is it because of the assumption that if society allows this civil right, society should allow a lot of other rights later?
“The assumption that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (negative) events” is called the slippery slope fallacy. In this case, apparently, it is the notion that legalising gay marriage will eventually lead to people having turtle sex.[4] Please note that the slippery slope argument is not to be confused with the warped causality of statements such as: gay marriage leads to floods, et cetera.[5]

Is it because of the assumption that marriage is meant for raising children and two parents of the same sex cannot adequately raise children?
According to a major 2014 study conducted by researchers from the University of Melbourne, children raised by same-sex couples actually do a bit better than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.

Is it because of the assumption that a man and a woman should be married?
Why should men and women be married?[6]

Is it the fact that some people are made uncomfortable by, for instance, two men making out?
If so, who cares?[7]

“Homosexuality is a form of love and it deserves our respect for that reason.” – Christopher Hitchens

---

[1] None of the objections mentioned in this article refer to metaphysical entities such as gods, angels, et cetera, nor does it refer to the Bible, Torah or similar mythological works mainly because of the Dennettian Lucille Argument. (With the Lucille Argument, the philosopher Daniel Dennett proved that any argument which is nonsensical, discredited, has a doubtful source, et cetera, can be countered by the equally weak argument “Well, my friend Lucille says otherwise.” Should the Lucille statement be questioned, Dennett was fond of replying “A friend of mine – Lucille. She’s always right.”)

[2] Words like “tradition”, “institution”, “sanctity” and “covenant” are the usual fuzzy nonsense indicators in such apologetic sentences.

[3] Even though homosexuality is common in nature, humanity is the only species that is capable of homophobia. Sure, we can spell “homophobia” but that does not tell the whole story.

[4] In 2003, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor expressed his concern that legalising gay marriage would eventually lead to bestial unions “But here you go, this is the slippery slope. You legalize gay marriage, gay sex and all of that, then anybody who wants to marry five people can do it, and commune people can do it. You can marry a turtle, …”

[5] In 2014, UKIP councillor David Silvester was suspended from the party when he said the serious floods in the UK were the direct result of the legalisation of gay marriage.

[6] Tedious and probably nonsensical though it would be, it would also be amazingly original to read an answer to this question that does not have the subtext “because my religion says so”.

[7] Please note the common ‘I-think-lesbian-sex-is-hot-though’ double standard.

Anton Schmid

Anton Schmid was an electrician who owned a small radio shop in Vienna. He was drafted into the German army after the Anschluss of 1938. Little did he know, that his short military career would posthumously become a case for innate basic human decency.

Yellow badge Star of David called ‘Judenstern’

Schmid found himself stationed near Vilnius in the autumn of 1941. During much of the 19th century and continuing in the 20th century until the Nazi invasion, Vilnius and Warsaw were Europe’s two pre-eminent centres of Jewish cultural, intellectual, religious and political life.

In the summer of 1941, the Nazis launched a genocidal campaign of mass murder and deportations to death camps that, in three years, systematically killed about 180,000 Jews, i.e. about 94% of the Jews living in Lithuania before World War II, the largest percentage of any country.

As a sergeant of the Wehrmacht, Schmid witnessed the herding of Jews into two ghettos and the shooting of thousands of them in nearby Ponary. In a letter to his wife, Schmid described his horror at the sight of mass murder and of “children being beaten on the way”. He related: “You know how it is with my soft heart. I could not think and had to help them.”

Anton Schmid was moved by the suffering of the Jews in the Vilnius ghetto and decided to help. He managed to release Jews from jail and risked his own life by smuggling food into the ghetto. His courageous assistance involved the saving of more than 250 Jews whom he managed to hide. He also supplied material and forged papers to the Jewish underground.

Schmid was arrested in January 1942, and summarily tried before a Nazi military court on February 25. He was found guilty and executed on April 13 by the Nazis for his humanitarian acts.

If Sergeant Schmid’s acts were enormously rare, he evidently saw nothing extraordinary in them.

“I merely behaved as a human being,”

he said in his last letter to his wife. In all the hell that was breaking loose around him, he chose to stay awake, to keep his head up and his heart opened. In the midst of so much death and destruction, he found some way to value life. Schmid stood out as one of the few known German soldiers who had enough courage to do what they felt was right.

In her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt singled out the example of Sergeant Schmid as illustrating the lesson that “under conditions of terror, most people will comply but some people will not.” She continued, “How utterly different everything would have been in Israel, in Germany, in all of Europe, and perhaps in all countries of the world, if only more such stories could have been told.”

On 16 May 1967, the Israeli government paid tribute to Sergeant Anton Schmid. Yad Vashem awarded his widow the medal Righteous Among the Nations which bears the inscription:

“Whoever saves one life – saves the world entire.”