So, I hate to tackle such a touchy issue so soon, but it was the impetus for me actually creating this blog in the first place.
Today George Takei who I follow on Twitter for his outstanding punnitude, linked this image:
A fuller version of this comment is given in this article from the New Yorker circa 2010.
Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote, they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table. And that is all we want to do. We have no desire to change marriage. We want to be entitled to not only the same privileges, but the same responsibilities as straight people.
Now, this is an interesting analogy, and one I have heard several times before. The ability to participate in communal eating has nothing to do with the color of one’s skin because the color of one’s skin doesn’t “bring anything to the table”, either in this situation or really any other. It doesn’t affect the outcome of the experience if you have a group of all white, or all black or a mixed group of people dining or voting or working (etc) together. So it made sense to give up racial prejudice and give black people the right to vote and eat and work (etc) in all the same places white people did.
But men and women are different and do bring different things to the table (and I am not just talking anatomically), and “desegregating” various activities has been if anything a harder road here, if less public. It had to be shown that what women bring to the table mentally and ideologically when voting was as good (if not better, on an individual basis) as what men bring. Then the vote was desegregated. It had to be shown that what women bring to the table physically and emotionally when working was as good (again, if not better) as what men bring. Then the workplace began to desegregate (no woman worker would say that process is over).
Then the question of marriage came up as a small but ever present (as in, around since ancient history) portion of society began to demand equal treatment. I am speaking of course of the homosexual community. By demanding equal treatment and making an appeal to the noble causes of the racial and gender desegregations that came before, the homosexual community is saying that respective genders of two people does not affect their ability to be married together.
This is where I have to draw a line in the sand. Countless books have been written by both secular and Christian authors about what men and women each bring to marriage and how the differences between men and women complement each other. These differences in turn lead to a deeper relationship than one experiences with the closest of friends that one can have with another member of one’s own gender and are part of what can bind a marriage together for a lifetime.
The end is this:
To deny gender differences exist by claiming equality for homosexual couples is to deny the strength that a heterosexual marriage can have because of the differences in the genders.
Now, I could make all sorts of other arguments against homosexual marriage, mostly based on my religious views. But I think that this one stands on its own because it comes right out of what the homosexual community is trying to build their argument from: an appeal to other “rights” movements.