I've been perusing the other side of the gay marriage debate as of late, and I'm not particularly impressed. I've come up with some rational answers to the 'talking points' section of NOM's website.
More over the fold.
Direct from NOM's website, all quotes are taken from their 'talking points' page.
- Are you a bigot? "Why do you want to take away people’s rights?"
"Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?"
A: "Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense."
Short answer, YES. You ARE a bigot if you think that a same-sex couple can't raise a child as well as a mixed-sex couple.
Deconstruction: They're trying to do a few things with this response. First off, they're trying to make you uncomfortable about calling someone you may like otherwise a bigot. Second, they're trying to say, subtly, that if you disagree with 60% of African-Americans, you must be a bigot yourself. News flash: just because a majority of a group of people believe something, that doesn't make it right, nor does it make you a bigot to disagree with them. This falls into the same category of "anyone who disagrees with Israel is an anti-semite," or "anyone who disagrees with the government is unpatriotic".
- Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?
A: "Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone." "Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father."
There have been several studies that show that a child of a same-sex couple has no significant difference from other children of the same economic level. Many children are deprived of their 'own mom or dad' - orphans, adoptees, etc. Over and over, studies have shown that two parents are the most stable and nurturing environment - regardless of their respective sexes.
Deconstruction: Bigotry that same-sex couples can't possibly be as good as mixed-sex couples, and assuming anyone they talk to will conclude the same, in spite of the complete lack of evidence. Possibly falling back to the "as God intended" argument.
- Why do we need a constitutional amendment? "Isn’t DOMA enough?"
A: "Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians."
Other than the patently false assertion that a constitutional amendment is 'once and for all' (remember prohibition?), the abortion debate's been 'in everyone's face' for decades, and we seem to be none the worse for it. Certainly, the people DO get to decide what marriage means, as some states have passed constitutional amendments against it, and others have legalized it. Lawsuits didn't 'impose gay marriage' on anyone - judges can't make law, they can only rule on existing ones. Lastly, they're only 'activist judges' when they strike down laws you want on the books. When they strike down laws you do like, they are 'showing proper jurisprudence'.
Deconstruction: We want a constitutional amendment because we're tired of debating? That's pretty weak sauce. The rest of this is pure right-wing red meat. "gay marriage was imposed" "the people choose" "activist judges" "San-Francisco-style politicians".
- What’s the harm from SSM? "How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?"
A: "Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right."
A: "If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists."
"Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
"Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids."
"When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder."
"One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right."
People who believe that mixed-sex couples are the only way to raise children ARE bigots.
big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Religious groups will not lose their tax-exempt status. There will be no requirement for churches that don't want to do gay marriages to do so if they don't want to.
Since when do public schools teach kids about parents being intimate?
Religious groups have taught bigotry for years under the cloak of religion, most notably bigotry against other religions (ie, the "not saved").
You still have the right to define marriage however you want. What you will lose is the ability to impose that definition on someone else, a right you should never had had in the first place.
Deconstruction: A lot of misconceptions and half-truths spun into a set of arguments.
- Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: "Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children."
So gays couples can't love their children as well as mixed couples can? Or are you saying that the love between a gay couple is somehow inferior to a mixed couple? Either way, that's a rather bigoted view of love.
Deconstruction: Assumes gay love is inferior to straight love.
- What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?"
A: "If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage."
A: "The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. "
While you could, theoretically, fight for equivalent rights to marriage, and get marriage in everything but name, why fight 50 separate issues when you can clear them all with one move?
The institution of marriage does NOT protect children in and of itself. How many children come from marriages that lasted for years where they were abused, neglected, or otherwise messed up?
Deconstruction: This is disingenuous. What does marriage protect children from? Single parenthood? Not really, people get divorced all the time. Abuse? Again, not so much. When it works, marriage is the best place for a child to grow up. Children of gay couples are no more likely to be disadvantaged than children of mixed couples.
- Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?
A: "High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it."
Hard to believe so many misconceptions can be crammed into a single sentence. First off, there are more divorces in the US in a single year (approx 700,000 couples get divorced every year at the US national divorce rate of 4.95 divorces per 1000 people) than there are gay couples raising children (approximately 250,000 children are being raised in the US by a gay couple), so if you really care about marriage, you'd be campaigning to bring down the divorce rate. Second, giving a group of people rights they should have anyway is hardly radical - it was done in the 60's with inter-racial marriage. Lastly, it's far less of a social experiment than giving women the vote, and we weathered that just fine.
Deconstruction: Again, the basis of this is the assumption that gay marriage is somehow inferior to straight marriage.
- Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?
A: "Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that."
This is completely false. No serious study of gay couples has shown any difference between children of gay parents and children of straight parents, including their sexual orientation.
Deconstruction: Again, gay marriage is assumed to be inferior because it's gay marriage.
- What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?
A: "Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges."
This is the same as the previous question.
Deconstruction: Again, gay marriage is inferior because it's gay marriage.
Honestly, I'm surprised that there's not more bible-based reasoning here. As it stands, the bulk of their arguments stem from the basic "we're better than them" bunk that's been around since the beginning of time. Especially telling is the insistence that "No same-sex couple can provide a mother and a father." This argument presupposes that a mother and a father are required to raise a child properly. I think there is a paradigm here that needs to be shifted - from a "Mom and Dad" to "Two parents". There have been tons of studies as to how hard it is for children of single-parent households, so the people who are really doing it 'for the children' should really be campaigning against divorce, or providing support services to single parents.
I think now that the pendulum has started to shift in favor of gay marriage we need to be especially vigilant in debunking the arguments that come out of places like the National Organization for Marriage (which should more accurately be called the National Organization for Straight Marriage). Please always be respectful if you engage someone with this mindset - their only real weapon is to get you flustered and upset, since they have very little logic to rest their arguments on.