What Gay Marriage is Really About

In the ongoing debate concerning gay marriage I repeatedly see two different arguments made by those on each side of the issue. However, despite these primary arguments, the issue is really about something deeper.

Anti-Gay Marriage - Its About Protecting the Definition of Marriage

The primary argument used by those who are against gay marriage is that that allowing gay marriage will redefine marriage. What does redefining marriage mean? According to this argument, marriage is a word that by definition includes only a union between a man and woman. By making this claim they posit that for marriage to be open to allowing same sex couples, then marriage's basic definition will be changed.

The argument against this proposes that marriage is only defined as a union between a man and a woman because that is the traditional definition but is by no means complete. Allowing gay marriage would not change the definition but rather expand its definition to include same sex marriages. This idea is evident in Webster's Dictionary which now contains a definition of marriage for both opposite and same sex couples.

Pro-Gay Marriage - Its About Civil Rights

The primary argument used by those who are for gay marriage revolves around civil rights. The argument is that by not allowing gays the right to marry they are denied various civil rights. Those for gay marriage repeatedly say same sex couples are being denied the right to marry and that by not being allowed to marry, the state or nation where they live will not afford them specific rights given to married individuals.

The argument against this is two fold. Firstly by the traditional definition of marriage, all gays have the right to marry – someone of the opposite sex – and thus are not denied any civil rights. This of course uses the traditional definition of marriage and is not how same-sex couples intend their explanation of their loss of their marriage right – they believe they do not have the right to be married to the person they love regardless of their sex.

Concerning the loss of state and national rights, those against gay marriage explain that a civil union has all the same rights afforded to it as a marriage (at least in California) and so there is no loss in civil rights between the two definitions.

Its Really About Validation

These two arguments are just surface issues though. Sure there is some weight given to those who are against marriage's redefinition just as there is weight to those who claim their civil rights are being denied, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is validation of lifestyle.

If gay marriage is allowed it validates the gay lifestyle in ways that civil unions do not. Marriage is the traditional form of union and that which is most widely understood and accepted. Having a union that is not defined as a marriage diminishes its value (regardless if there is any real difference in practice at all). Gays have been seeking validation for their lifestyle for decades (if not longer) and having their unions solidified by the traditional word, marriage, would represent a new shift in wide scale acceptance of gay lifestyles.

Those who are against gay marriage are against it for the same reason – validation. Most against gay marriage believe it to be fundamentally inappropriate (some say sinful) and not desirous for the population. They have various reasons as to why this is, but in the end, allowing gay marriage would further validate gay lifestyles and legitimize it for this and future generations (promoting more same-sex experimentation and general acceptance among the youth). For those who see this as an issue of moral impurity, validating the gay lifestyle is like endorsing the destruction of society – not an easy thing to ask of anyone who feels strongly about it.

There are idiots on both sides of this discussion, and so we need not judge the validity of the others' arguments by the extremists – there are bigots on both sides. But as long as we continue to focus on the more surface issues of marriage redefinition and civil rights, this debate will go on and on with neither side making progress. When we are honest with ourselves however concerning the true issue, it will allow us to move closer to understanding of both sides. Considering the extreme polarizing moral effects of this decision however, we can only assume things will get worse before they get better.