Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Top 10 same-sex marriage arguments

June 24, 2012 @ 6:36 pm (Updated: 5:45 am - 6/25/12 )

wa4marriage An estimated 250,000 people enjoyed Seattle's Gay Pride Parade (photos), while others debated an upcoming vote on marriage-equality in Washington state.

Seattle resident Beau Chevassus has been considering what he calls the most common, or top 10, arguments regarding same-sex marriage.

For his analysis, Chevassus disregarded Bible-based reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, because "while our culture is deeply rooted in Christian principles" not everyone agrees with those principals.

In the video below he breaks down, negates, and illustrates the gay marriage arguments.

If you don't have don't have time for the video, here are his basic points:

1. I'm for gay marriage because I know gay people and they're nice. Just because we're friends with a nice person, doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they do, he says. Politicians who are forcing us to change marriage are making everyone out to be monsters if you don't agree 100 percent with your friends.

2. Gay people are attracted to each other. We can't change that and should embrace it. Politicians are forcing us to change marriage because of a sexual desire, he argues.

3. Gay marriage is about love. Marriage doesn't have anything to do with love, he says. Marriage isn't based on love, which is emotional and subjective. Love is not a legally-binding reason to completely change a basic institution.

4. Gay marriage is about commitment. For any marriage to work, both people need to be selfless and committed. Commitment is not the only reason to get married, he says as he offers the example of marrying your mother because she is as committed to you as anyone. Politicians are trying to change marriage because two people have been committed roommates for a long time.

5. Denying gay marriage is equated to the days when people of different races were not allowed to be married. Politicians are equating a sexual preference with being black, he says, but being gay is a strong choice, and not the same as being born a particular race.

6. Gay people want the same legal rights as others. Washington has the "everything but marriage law" which grants people in our state the same rights as married couples, he says. Politicians are trying to scare people into thinking gay partners are being denied civil rights.

7. Gay parents are just as good as heterosexual parents. When children are brought into the debate, people get very emotional. We need to be very careful if we're changing entire institutions based on emotions, he cautions.

8. Marriage is just a label. Politicians are hijacking the label of marriage as a way to force everyone to endorse a lifestyle. (Bondage, yes, he goes there with an analogy around 8 minutes into the video which talks about redefining a basic word).

9. Just let them have marriage, it's not like heterosexual couples are doing so well with it considering divorce rates. Politicians will do anything to win this label of "marriage" even if it means undermining the institution, he says.

10. Let's just agree to disagree. This is always the last response you will hear, he says. While people are coming across as open minded, they're really saying "you're right" but I don't want to admit how illogical gay marriage arguments are.

Your concurrence or rebuttal on any of these arguments?

 

By LINDA THOMAS

Photo from Sunday's Gay Pride Parade in Seattle, by Washington United for Marriage

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (90)


  • Add A Comment

  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Response from Peter via Facebook
    June 24, 2012 6:25 pm
    1. I do not base my position on people I know. 2. You are only half right, it is based on attraction, but not just sexual desire. Sex itself is not gender specific, instead gender orientation is about who you want to DATE. The difference seems subtle, but makes all the difference in the world. 3. I agree, so why are we protecting marriage? 4. Roommates rent together, couples live a life together. Your “roommate” should not eat the groceries you buy, your partner shares in half of everything you own. Couple make major life decision like having and raising a child, buying a house etc. You can quit your job and your roommate has no vested interest as long as you pay the rent. 5. Actually, there is science that says that the part of the brain that determines sexual orientation is larger in a woman than it is in a man and twice the size in a gay man than in a straight woman. So it isn’t a choice. Therefore the exact same thing as denying it besed on race. 6. That is because they are. Who would know the medical wishes of a person better, the long distant non-approving family member or the partner of 20 years? 7. Seeing as how Snooki can be a parent without any sort of background check and the very existence of toddlers and tiaras means that heterosexuality does not automatically mean better parenting, let a couple dudes have a crack at it. It isn’t like they are going make things worse. 8. It isn’t a label, it is a government recognizing a relationship. There is a reason the piece of paper is called a marriage license. It is the government stating that the two of you are legally responsible for each other. Why can’t two women do that too? 9. How is Jerry Sandusky maintaining the sanctity of marriage? I think that marriage is not very special to Rush Limbaugh and Ted Kennedy so why can’t a couple ladies have a crack at it? No one can define or undermine your marriage but you and your partner. 10. Actually, me saying let’s agree to disagree is my way of saying that I know you are wrong but I do not think you are smart enough to understand my points and I don’t respect you enough to keep talking."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Troll Hunter wrote...
    Peter on facebook
    June 25, 2012 11:34 am
    Well thought out, very well put.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • psessum wrote...
    My response point by point lol
    June 24, 2012 6:27 pm
    1. I do not base my position on people I know. 2. You are only half right, it is based on attraction, but not just sexual desire. Sex itself is not gender specific, instead gender orientation is about who you want to DATE. The difference seems subtle, but makes all the difference in the world. 3. I agree, so why are we protecting marriage? 4. Roommates rent together, couples live a life together. Your “roommate” should not eat the groceries you buy, your partner shares in half of everything you own. Couple make major life decision like having and raising a child, buying a house etc. You can quit your job and your roommate has no vested interest as long as you pay the rent. 5. Actually, there is science that says that the part of the brain that determines sexual orientation is larger in a woman than it is in a man and twice the size in a gay man than in a straight woman. So it isn’t a choice. Therefore the exact same thing as denying it besed on race. 6. That is because they are. Who would know the medical wishes of a person better, the long distant non-approving family member or the partner of 20 years? 7. Seeing as how Snooki can be a parent without any sort of background check and the very existence of toddlers and tiaras means that heterosexuality does not automatically mean better parenting, let a couple dudes have a crack at it. It isn’t like they are going make things worse. 8. It isn’t a label, it is a government recognizing a relationship. There is a reason the piece of paper is called a marriage license. It is the government stating that the two of you are legally responsible for each other. Why can’t two women do that too? 9. How is Jerry Sandusky maintaining the sanctity of marriage? I think that marriage is not very special to Rush Limbaugh and Ted Kennedy so why can’t a couple ladies have a crack at it? No one can define or undermine your marriage but you and your partner. 10. Actually, me saying let’s agree to disagree is my way of saying that I know you are wrong but I do not think you are smart enough to understand my points and I don’t respect you enough to keep talking.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • psessum wrote...
    Contrary part two
    June 24, 2012 7:39 pm
    But if it is conditioning, then it really isn't a choice either. Not that it matters, who gives a rat's rear end if it is a choice or not? I will take a part of your argument, if sex is part of the definition than what we are really doing then is drawing an arbitrary line of sex acts. Why not say that that marriage is only legal if the two people only have sex for procreation or only use the missionary position? Why draw the line at sex between two people of the same gender when, as your research claims, we could all be gay if circumstances were different. And if it is conditioning, then doesn't that mean a parental influence? If straight people didn't want gay people around, then they should stop making them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chris P Duck wrote...
    10 ways to discriminate against gays
    June 24, 2012 8:00 pm
    This screed is all about the illogic in a bunch of strawman arguments to support marriage equality. I submit that it is not the argument against discrimination which needs to be defended, but the argument to continue to discriminate. This is something that is not done here at all. There is not one valid reason to keep a segment of the population from using a word that is currently the sole property of heterosexuals. There is only a numbered diatribe against some of the reasoning used by many people to arrive at the personal decision on which way to vote, on someone else’s rights ~ something that simply should not be done in a just and equal society. However: 1) “I know some gays who are nice…” Is not an argument for marriage equality, it is a valid reason for one person to not vote to discriminate… against their friends. How can you have a friend and vote to discriminate against them? And being called a homophobe is not for not agreeing 100% with your friends, it is for wanting to discriminate against your friends. For actively campaigning in order to encourage discrimination against your friends. 2) “Basically, gay marriage is all about sex, even though ‘traditional’ marriage is not” This is not an argument I have ever heard before, and despite what you say, everyone is not forced to endorse anyone else’s sexual feelings. (I am not ‘forced’ to endorse your relationship just because you got married. I didn’t even know! ~ you could have told me, I might have sent a gift.) Everyone who is attracted to ‘ea-chother’ does not necessarily get married, right? We don’t legitimize YOUR relationship based on the sexual content of it… do we? Is straight marriage any more or less about sex than gay marriage? Try again ! 3) It’s about love? No it’s about equality. You still haven’t hit on an argument anyone has ever made. You asked yourself the question, why shouldn’t two loving people be able to be married? This is a question about equality, which you don’t address once again. Instead you go on about marriage not being based on love. However, I bet almost every single married couple will tell you otherwise. 4) And now you start getting ridiculous. Commitment is a part of every relationship. If a gay committed relationship is like marrying your mother, then the same thing applies to a straight relationship. And then you equate a gay relationship to room-mate status. The same thinking has been keeping partners dying in hospitals from seeing their loved ones for years. 5) Since you are solely basing this argument on your assertion that gays made a choice… I can smash that theory with one question: When did YOU make the choice to be heterosexual. Be honest with yourself ! Unless you woke up one morning and decided that, even though you are more attracted to your friend in the wrestling tights, that you were going to go ahead and live a life of heterosexuality, you have to realize that gays didn’t do that either. Now talking about going home to announce to your parent that you are black, another one of those Adam and Steve bumper-sticker arguments, brings up a side note. Of course gay history is not the same as Black history, and lots of Blacks and some scared heterosexuals like to point that out. But Blacks have one thing going for them that many gays do not. They do not have to fear their own homes. Many many gay teens have run away or killed themselves because their parents do not accept their homosexuality. Not one black teen has had to face racial discrimination at home. 6) Washington has the "everything but marriage law" You are right, there is not that much left to gain. You are fighting a war of territoriality over a word. Why are you so desperate to control that word? If it doesn’t make any difference, then why spend your energy (and money) worrying about it? 7) And now you are back to the same equality argument. If we’re just as good as you… (or as bad, collectively) hell, even if we’re not, just on the basis of the fact that we live in a society where we all are supposed to have equal rights, you are arguing for discrimination. Say it again ~ you are arguing FOR DISCRIMINATION. You are saying, we have something YOU want, (a word) and even though I haven’t made a single valid argument for keeping you away from it, and even though your use of it does not diminish my use of it, I still don’t want you to have it. That is the side of the argument that needs to be defended, not the side that wants to end discrimination. part b) Nice Straw Man argument, setting up a brother and sister ‘who have custody of a child’. Has this ever happened? Has there ever been a brother/sister pair raising a child, who decided to get married? I suppose it could have, but it sounds silly as an argument from a grown-up. 8) Force you to endorse a lifestyle? You said that before. It did not apply then and it does not the second time. I did not endorse YOUR marriage, you don’t have to endorse mine. It is that simple. Your bondage scenario is pure fantasy. Words do change meaning over time, sometimes suddenly, as in many computer words. But having an inclusive meaning is not going to make my Gramma cringe when she gets a wedding invitation next month. A Mapplethorpe image won’t suddenly pop into her head every time she sees a TV ad for diamond rings, and she certainly won’t go to Bingo and tell her girlfriends that she endorses gay butt-sex, now that she has been forced to by ‘these political people’. 9) Straight divorce rates being what they are … why do they want it so badly? Why do you want to change the subject so badly? You say, “These political people’ are undermining marriage” …by pointing out the divorce rate?? This is for real? Ok, I guess that anyone who is seriously listening at this point will believe anything you say. But, pointing out the divorce rate, and Brittany Spears, that Jersey Shores person with the two week million-dollar marriage, etc. is actually a counter argument against what comes from pro-discrimination people all the time. You are protecting the ‘sanctity of marriage’ by stopping ‘them’ from getting it. Where is that sanctity? A dwindling percentage of straight people believe in sanctity, it would seem. 10) You didn’t want to stop at 9, so you threw this in. People ‘agree to disagree’ rather than start swearing and calling you names, or pull a gun out of their purse. You may want to think that you are so convincing that you brought them around despite themselves, but you haven’t. Yet they still may value your friendship, so they stop short of saying something that would end it. Like they would say to the ‘friend’ in number one who wanted to vote to discriminate against that ‘friend.’ To paraphrase: “You can be loving, and still vote to discriminate.” …and it’s the other side that has no logic !! In the end, you keep arguing that ‘we have to be very very careful’ before ‘changing an institution’… which seems to be your sole argument for stopping the end of this particular form of discrimination in our society. And to that I respond, that we have already seen a few states and nations where marriage equality has been enacted. Other than the panic attacks in certain Fundamentalist groups, this has resulted in no harm to anyone. So I think we have taken due care. And I would also point you to a work by Yale professor John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe, which has examples of rites to unite gay couples, throughout history up to Byzantine era. So the tradition that you think is as old as humanity, isn’t. The bottom line is this: You want to install “these politically minded people” as the boogeymen rather than admit that there is an entire class of people who now want equal rights. You spent a hell of a lot of your valuable time, in an effort to make sure that those people remain second class citizens. That really is the most illogical thing going on today. Unless you can tell me how another couple’s personal relationship has anything to do with you, you have no standing at all to call into question anyone else’s logic.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • psessum wrote...
    My thoughts on same sex marriage
    June 24, 2012 8:21 pm
    Rather than just poke holes in the post, I thought I should share my thoughts on same sex marriage. I am an Army veteran. I feel that I defended the rights and freedoms of all Americans. I fully support everyone's right to think, say and feel what they want. Even if I disagree with them. The very fact that people can speak so openly about the government proves to me how free we are. However, there are law abiding citizens that do not have the same rights (or you can say legal protections) that other law abiding citizens have. In fact, a person that commits horrible crimes will have certain rights taken away as punishment, like freedom of movement and the right to vote. However, that same criminal can get married in prison even though two law abiding American citizens can't. As a veteran, that offends me on a base level. My main reason I support same sex marriage is because I have the hope that once legal, people will stop talking about it. No offense to anyone else, but I don't care who you decide to share your life with. It does not impact me in any way. I am not enlightened in my support of same sex marriage, I am just extremely apathetic.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • NWGUY wrote...
    they can get
    June 25, 2012 9:53 am
    registered as domestic partners, and they have all the same state rights as a married couple.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Troll Hunter wrote...
    psessum
    June 25, 2012 12:11 pm
    Very well spoken. I personally would like to thank you for your service to our beloved nation, people like you are the reason we even have the right to discuss this subject. That your desire appears to be to allow equal rights as promised to all Americans makes me respect you even more.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Why couldn't someone marry his brother and his wife?
    June 24, 2012 8:45 pm
    what are you talking about? Put the bottle down and go to bed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • John E wrote...
    Meddling with other folks' happiness
    June 24, 2012 9:59 pm
    Knowing that gay marriage does not affect my marriage whatsoever and that all the resistance is about denying 2 consenting adults from expressing their love and commitment, I see allowing gay marriage as a no brainer. Some here see it as a mental illness or morally wrong, but I see it morally wrong to deny happiness. Also, this has nothing to do with polygamy, marrying a dog or a pork chop or a building. Polygamy is about control. That's not marriage. Marriage is about love. When marriage is about some other reason or arrangement, it only has proven to lead to headaches and broken hearts. So for happiness' sake, folks should trade the time arguing about this in for focusing on making their own marriage better, not denying the others the chance. BTW, my wife is asleep..
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chris P Duck wrote...
    John E
    June 24, 2012 10:01 pm
    Well done
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Troll Hunter wrote...
    Rebuttal
    June 25, 2012 12:28 am
    1. I'm for gay marriage because I know gay people and they ARE nice. I am also for straight marriages because I know straight people and they are nice. We need to know what we are voting for, right? Knowing and talking to gay people I got the chance to see the issue from their perspective. 2. Politicians are not forcing us to change marriage because of sexual desire, they are not forcing ANYTHING down my throat. Most people get married because of sexual desire; pregnancy marriages are included here. Those unwanted pregnancies coast the tax payers how much a year? Gay men cannot get pregnant, lesbians can of course but they only do so out of choice. 3. Excuse me; marriage is ALL ABOUT LOVE!!! Love cements the relationship, keeps people married beyond the I do's. Marriages not based in love, unwanted pregnancy marriages for instance, end up often times in domestic violence and/or divorce. Neither straights nor gays should get married without love being involved. Yes love is an emotion, but we humans are emotional creatures so what's the issue? 4. Commitment is important in any marriage, gay or straight. Of course it's not the only reason, did we already forget about sexual desire and love? The mommy marriage example is completely flawed, unless you are talking about incest, which is illegal for scientific reasons. Using your logic since I love my father I should marry him too. 5. Denying gay marriages because of prejudiced beliefs is wrong, just as it is denying interracial or interreligious marriages based on prejudiced beliefs. Being gay is a strong choice for many, but for many it is also a genetic choice as well. Race is also based in genetics, hence they can be viewed as extremely similar if not the same. 6. Of course gay couples are fighting for legal rights, just as women and minorities had to do in the past. Isn’t that one of the basic tenants of all marriages done in this country, be it by preacher, justice of they peace, or a sea captain out at sea. Don’t forget its called marriage LICENSE you both sign. Gay couples want the same rights straight people have, especially if their union is exactly the same as a straight marriage in all but how they perform the physical act of sex. 7. We are emotional creatures, didn’t we just go through that? All our decisions are based on emotions whether we want to admit it or not. Some people let their emotions lead them around life, others keep their emotions on a leash. Using logic I can only surmise that there is a high probability that gay parents may be better than straight parents. Gay people don’t make accidental babies, it is a choice. Can we straight people really say the same? Unwanted baby, poor parent(s); wanted baby loving parents. Basic. 8. Yes, marriage is just a label; a label of a civil union between two people. Interesting that we are all told that we know the definition of marriage, yet we are never given it. If you want us to redefine a word, shouldn’t we presented with the before and after definitions? A whip is a weapon, however it is not illegal except to use it on another human without permission. Key work is permission here. 9. Divorce rates are a skewed statistic, plus if I remember correctly gays couldn’t get married before so there is no data to compare with straight rates of divorce. Makes that at pretty worthless argument for anyone therefore. Politicians are not trying to undermine the institution of marriage, which we previous defined as a civil union. Gays want a change in the legal definition of marriage/civil union, politician said okay and now it goes to a public vote. Doesn’t sound underhanded or like someone is trying to undermine anything, does it. 10. Okay, I’ll agree to disagree. You are against gay marriage, I am for it. You won’t change my mind and I doubt I will change yours. I guess we will all have to wait to see what we the people decide come vote time. Knowledge, empathy, and compassion bring about change; change and time bring about wisdom and love. Narrow mindedness brings about stagnation and mental decay.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fartforce1 wrote...
    #11 and #12
    June 25, 2012 3:25 am
    #11 - Gay marriage does not actually effect me or invalidate my own marriage and I dont actually care if two people of the same sex want to be married. #12 - allowing gay marriage kills a political talking point that divides people. The GOP knows that they cant win on arguments so they fight over stuff like god, gays, guns and abortion. Speaking of abortion - when the GOP controlled the presidency the senate and congress they didnt move to kill abortion because that would also remove a divisive talking point and lesson the parties voting numbers. So keeping the topic hot keps votes in their corner.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mihalyim wrote...
    filibuster
    June 25, 2012 6:30 am
    Do you honestly think that at ant time during Bush's Presidency they had the votes to overcome a filibuster that Democrats would have put up? Them just passing a law over it would not have eliminated the issue either since Democrats would have still brought it up trying to reverse the law much like republicans are doing with the individual mandate from Obamacare.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Let's say marriage is a religious sacrament. Let's say it isn't.
    June 25, 2012 6:34 am
    First, let's say marriage is a religious sacrament. If that's the case (as I believe) then the government has no right dictating to a church or other religious body who they must, or who they cannot, marry. I don't want to see any church forced to marry a couple that the particular church deems "unworthy", or "sinful", or whatever. Under the new law, no church is forced to perform gay (or any other type) of marriage. By the same token, if a church wants to marry a same sex couple, it should not be "illegal" for that church to do so. There are precedents for government interference in religious practice- for example, if I wanted to start a religion where we had human sacrifice every Sunday I would be stopped from doing so. Pronouncing God's blessing on the union of two same-sex people is hardly tantamount to human sacrifice.

    Let's say that marriage isn't a religious sacrament. Let's say it's a binding contract between two consenting adults. A contract that bestows tax advantages, creates survivorship in pensions, permits insurance coverage, and a large number of other specific items that are *not* available to any couple, (gay or straight), bound by a "civil union". On what basis do we decree that gay people have fewer legal rights than straights?

    The party making all these anti-gay marriage arguments insists that homosexuality is a "choice". Any number of respected medical experts would argue that point with him- but let's give him enough rope and let him hang himself. Isn't being a Republican a choice? A Democrat? A Catholic? A Protestant? An Atheist? An agnostic? Once the reactionaries at least temporarily prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same legal rights as straights, what group will they next set their sights upon? Will it be one or more of the "choices" identified in this paragraph?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chris P Duck wrote...
    God
    June 25, 2012 8:14 am
    the one good thing about the cartoon-article was that he left God out of it completely, probably because those arguments can be refuted simply by pointing out that we do not live in a Theocracy. Of course marriage is a civil contract between two people and the State. There is a school of thought that believes that ALL couples should have civil unions. If someone wants a religious wedding, they can do that as well, and they can call it whatever they want. Lots of gays would accept that as well.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }