The Gay Debate

As a major controversial subject in these United States, the debate over gay rights and marriage has several pieces written on the subject that make for great analysis for the use of the lines of argument. I have chosen to use an essay written by Scott Bidstrup titled “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives,” which I found on his website www.bidstrup.com, as my source for this paper because he covers all the major arguments and presents the reasons used most often. Throughout his essay Mr. Bidstrup makes use of reason the most, mainly through comparison of values of daily life and comparison between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Throughout the essay it is difficult to pinpoint any specific thing to point to his ethos on the subject, however in reading the essay one will easily see which side he is on, and at one point, he declares openly that he is himself gay. Therefore, in the points he makes about gays he can speak with full authority from their perspective.

Here is a summary and analysis of Mr. Bidstrup’s essay. His thesis is “why all the passion” about gay marriage, while there is support for gays in just about every other aspect of gay rights. The majority of the essay deals with the most publicized arguments for why gay marriage should not be allowed. Though he starts the essay with discussing stereotypes, focusing on the most common one, gays are promiscuous, he points out that there is promiscuity among gays, but that it is equal in proportion to that of heterosexuals and usually lessens as age and maturity are gained. Following this, he discusses what committed partners value and do. He points out that they generally follow exactly what heterosexual couples do. They participate on school boards, community projects, and are law-abiding citizens. After this, he moves the discussion into the arguments against gay marriage.

The first reason Mr. Bidstrup provides is that gay people have a choice in being gay or not. He presents an argument that gives his first appearance of ethos; he describes the emotional and inborn nature of homosexuality. Later in the essay, he discusses this point more fully, but at this point, he compares it to heterosexuality. In that, homosexuals cannot decide what sex they are attracted to anymore than heterosexuals can.

Following the choice argument, he discusses the “right-wing religious organization's” propaganda and attitude. The propaganda and attitude say that homosexuality is only about sex. Mr. Bidstrup points out that this is not true and shows the shortsightedness of these right-wingers. He further describes what ‘gay’ is to those of us who are. To show this more clearly, he uses comparisons with readily visible situations; an example, blacks in a white society.

Next, he reaches the meat of his essay, “The Arguments Against Gay Marriage.” Here he breaks up the essay discussing each statement where he provides his point of view as well as comparisons, facts, and occasionally appeals to the reader’s emotions.

The first point of argument he addresses is “Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.” He states that this is the weakest argument because it is purely of an arbitrary nature. He asks, “Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined?” and goes on to argue that there is no valid or reasonable answer to it. He also brings in to this an argument of values by bringing up the “American ideal of human rights.”

The Second point, “Same-sex couples aren’t the optimum environment in which to raise children,” has the most damning evidence against it that Mr. Bidstrup presents. He makes his case in reason using facts. He presents cases where laws are needed more so than picking a group of citizens that scince has proved to be equal in ability to 'normal' citizens. He points out that murderers, child molesters, and various other unsavory sorts can marry and have children without question or second thought. Where as several scientific studies have been conducted that show homosexual parents have no bearing on a child’s development, that love and care are all that matter.

The next point Mr. Bidstrup counters is, “gay relationships are immoral.” Again, he undermines this argument with a question, “says who? the Bible?” to which he argues that freedom of religion also implies the “right to freedom from religion.” He argues that this argument is supported by the constitution and in a statement made in our first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, 1791. To this he argues that any “moral injunction mandated by the Bible” is no ground for imposition of rules. He further argues that there are religions that want to perform gay marriages and that laws prohibiting such are an infringement on these religions’ right to practice openly and freely. These arguments present appeals to reason and fact, and the values of these United States.

His fourth statement by those that oppose gay marriage is, “Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species.” Here Mr. Bidstrup uses a bit of irony to make his case against this statement. His argument again appeals to reason. He brings up instances where this argument is not supported by reality. He uses the cases of post-menopausal women, and infertile couples. His conclusion here is that proponents of this argument are defying the understood reason and allowance of marriage, that it is for love and commitment. He also takes another two paragraphs to discuss the factor of world population and its effect on the planet.

Mr. Bidstrup’s fifth point of those most commonly made arguments against gay marriage is, “Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.” He bluntly states at the outset of his argument, “Well, that one’s contradictory right on the face of it.” His argument follows the primis that allowing marriage cannot threaten the institution of marriage. He presents the argument that by allowing gay marriages the number of divorces would drop as those who try to become part of the mainstream society elect not to marry outside their sexual nature. In addition, he points out that marriage is an option and not a requirement, therefore, no one would be required to be in one or perform one unless they desired too.

The sixth argument against gay marriage is, “Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.” His argument against this one brings in the issue of slavery and segregation. He points out that these were considered traditional institutions but were overturned and are now thought of as backward. His argument appeals more to values than to reason here. I feel that his argument is somewhat weak in that he is using an event outside of this issue. However, he does make up for this weakness by helping the reader to recognize that traditions change over time and that some traditions are prejudiced and prevent social progression.

The seventh argument is that “same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.” Here he gives an almost full page argument that provides solid evidence to the contrary. He presents facts that show gay marriage in other countries, equally progressive if not more so than the United States, has shown positive results. He also presents evidence that the religious sects of these countries have come to agree that gay marriage has been beneficial to the societies of those countries.

The eighth argument is probably the most ridiculous one presented by opponents of gay marriage, as Mr. Bidstrup says in more glamorous words, “reduction ad absurdum.” “Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.” Mr. Bidstrup says that this argument is “calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument.” He says that if this were the case, there has been enough time for those countries that have legalized gay marriage to have made this slip. However, he points out, no one in any of these countries has voiced such a request. He further points out proponents of this argument are not talking about murderers, rapists, etc, being allowed to marry.

Number nine in the most commonly used arguments is, “ granting gays the right to marry is a ‘special’ right.” In his opening line of reason against this argument he says that 90% of the population already have the right to marry and that allowing the remaining 10% to do so is not making a special case but extending this right and removing the moral holds on it. He further argues that most people have the misconception that everyone shares the same rights. Therefore, the majority view gays are asking for special rights. Mr. Bidstrup argues this is not the case especially where marriage is concerned.

The tenth argument, “sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently.” Mr. Bidstrup argues that the existence of laws of this sort were used as a basis of legalized discrimination. To support this he brings in experiences and presents language to the effect, ‘you are a criminal therefore I won’t hire you, I want you off my property, I won’t serve you, I don’t want you around my children.’ He also points out that politicians see homophobia, and the legalization of it, as a means to win votes.

The last two arguments, “gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples and would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so,” are argued against through facts and reason. Business would be subject to the state labor laws, but it is inconsequential as many businesses already provide same-sex benefits that prove to make good business sense as it raises the value of their stocks by presenting a view that these businesses are progressive. The cost of these benefits is also low, 1.5%. He also points out that churches already have the right to refuse to marry anyone, for any reason. Mr. Bidstrup goes on to provide specific instances where several churches refused to marry a couple.

Now Mr. Bidstrup goes into what he calls the real reasons for the opposition to gay marriage. “Just not comfortable with the idea. It offends everything religion stands for. Marriage is a sacred institution. Gay sex is unnatural. Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. The thought of gay sex is repulsive. They might recruit.” Throughout his arguments against these he uses reason and evidence. For most, he reasons that fear is the biggest motivator and for several he uses facts and descriptions from reality and points to evidence that can turn over some of the more ‘manly’ based arguments. He does achieve an appeal to ethos in his argument against “making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine.” He speaks of a few of his past partners describing them to be the epitome of ‘masculine,’ he speaks of champion bull-riding cowboys, and a biker type. In arguing against the “gay sex is unnatural” he brings up solid evidence of homosexuality in some 450 animal species out of a total 1500 species. Under the premise, “they might recruit,” he presents the case that many homophobes are sexually repressed and tend to have same sex attractions. From their view point if they can destroy the object that causes them distress they can negate these feelings. He furthers his argument by presenting a University of Georgia study that shows that over 70% of violent homophobes that have killed gay men, have proven to be sexually aroused by gay sex scenes.

In addition to these points, Mr. Bidstrup talks about homophobia in American culture. He views it coming from religious prejudice, where it seems to be so ingrained in the culture that no one really notices it unless they are on the receiving end.

The next section of the essay discusses “why this is a serious civil rights issue.” He states that when gays speak of civil rights they are speaking more toward “civil justice.” He claims that the lack of such can and often does have serious consequences. He presents the case of medical decisions and their relationship to hostile families and lack of partner rights in such cases. He also shows the case of economic hardships that can occur when a hostile family, who he mentions tend to be estranged of the partner in medical care, when they decide to take over that person's estate. Mr. Bidstrup continues the discussion on the matter of arrests and jail rights or privileges of prisoners to have their spouse visit and not to have to testify in court. Throughout these arguments, he appeals to ethos and pathos mostly through the cases of hostile families limiting the partner who cares for the person who is suffering or imprisoned. At the end of each paragraph he asks, “is this fair?” Definitively, an appeal to pathos. He supports these claims of injustice through personal knowledge of friends and acquaintances.

He then goes on to discuss “why does conservative politics find gay marriage so deeply threatening.” In this part of his essay he brings out the underlying, however, subjective, view that conservative politicians and religious groups act as a “strict father.” He cites the book by George Lakoff, “Moral Politics” in his use of the term “strict father.” The book uses this term, as cited by Mr. Bidstrup, as a metaphor to describe the way these politicians and religious groups act and think. He proposes the idea that these entities do not want to allow gay marriage because it goes outside their assumed moral boundaries. He argues for them to accept that someone could step out side and lead a happy life while showing that these boundaries are arbitrary would undermine the authority of the conservative entities. He argues that these entities should treat the issue of gay rights as they have racial segregation. He proposes that conservatism should “own up to its mistake, and simply expand it's moral boundaries.” In his conclusion, he makes his last appeal to the values of America, “freedom, liberty and justice for all.”

Through out his rather long, but detailed and interesting essay, Scott Bidstrup does a fair job of appealing to the values of the reader as well as appealing to the rhetorical reasoning power of the reader. The facts that he presents are generally accepted and sound. In his appeal to ethos, he has a unique perspective compared to those of others making similar arguments. He is a gay man who has lived through all the experiences or has been closely related to those that he talks about. His ethos is rather credible from the point of view of this essay. I feel that his reasoning is powerful and that he was not attempting to present propaganda but rather to persuade the reader that the conservative point of view and arguments are generally, shall we say, hog wash.

The Grudge of a President

The Iraq War came about because of the personal grudge of the President, who used falsified evidence, lies, and misdirection to gain popular support for this war. In the end, this war has cost these United States several thousand lives of soldiers and untold numbers of civilian lives. The war has also cost these United States several hundred billion dollars. By moving forward with the pace and care of a Bulldozer out of control, the President’s war has also cost these United States the backing and trust of its allies. It has lost its respect in the United Nations. It is generally viewed as a bully nation that wants everything its own way without regard for the cultures and citizens of the countries it is bulldozing.

The case for bulldozing comes from “Stay the course” rhetoric the administration uses and the attitude with which it treats any opposition to its plans. “Stay the course,” seems to have come through the administrations extreme desire to remove Saddam from power. In his article “The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed,” Craig Unger of Vanity Fair (July 2006 p92-156) takes the reader through a story of intrigue, lies, corruption, and clandestine enterprises. Remember the “16 words?” Those words said these United States had intelligence reports that Iraq wanted to buy “yellowcake” (unrefined uranium) from Niger. Unger explains the history behind these reports and the man who started the whole thing. The man was Michael Ledeen. He was a cohort of an Italian propaganda group called “Propoganda Due” or “P-2” (4). This group belonged to the Neoconservative or fascist movement up to the late 1980’s, dieing out at the end of the cold war. During its run though, P-2 was involved in seating high ranking and influential people in Italy. It had its fingers in every aspect of government and namely the Italian intelligence service, SISMI (Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare). It seems that SISMI is quite the organization if one is into the James Bond types. In reading, this article one would get a thrill from the way it was written and what all goes on that sounds fishy, but then that’s how spies work. Even if something is true, it can’t look too good because your neighbors want the same information, if you have it, you don’t want them to know where or how you got it. That little diatribe takes us into the heart of this whole mess. Apparently, P-2 was outlawed in 1981 but continued to work behind the scenes and underground while still maintaining its influence. In 1994, a billionaire supporter of the group was elected prime minister. He proceeded to install in high-level positions members of this organization that were familiar to Ledeen.

These placements were followed by a campaign to create evidence against Saddam using Niger. One of the officials had a contact with the Niger embassy in Italy. This he used as a source to gain access to the offices and steal letterhead and various other things. The letterhead was used to forge documents suggesting that Iraq wanted to buy 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger annually. This information is what Mr. Bush referred to in his speech.

After all the background intrigue, Unger proceeds to show how the information was passed around and made to appear as true. In effect these documents, or rather the reports of the documents, were passed from agency to agency to media outlet to media outlet and back around again so many times that it seemed as if everyone who had initial contact with this information were confirming everyone else. Unger describes this as an “echo chamber” (8). Twice, when this information was presented to the CIA and other US government officials, this information was denied by the French. They were asked to look into the situation because they had control over the Niger uranium mines. In short, if anything had been said or done, the French would know about it. Twice they said it was all false. All of the intelligence agencies that were handed this information believed it to be false but when it made its way to higher, untrained, government officials, it was just what they needed but at the behest of the agencies, they requested verification. The first time the CIA got wind of it, they tossed it out as so much garbage. Then it made its way to the White House where it then went to the French.

The aspects that make this information so much of a convoluted mess, is that none of the papers are in logical order. One paper refers to another that was dated after it. Another refers to the 1965 Niger constitution even though its date was after the 1999 constitution was in effect. The Niger president’s signature is also an apparent forgery. Another was signed by a Niger Mister that had been out of office for over a decade.

Now we come to another factor of this play. Rocco Martino, an Italian intelligence agent. He is quoted by Unger as saying, “SISMI wanted me to pass on the documents, but they didn’t want anyone to know they had been involved.” Apparently, throughout this whole mess, Ledeen, working through his allies in P-2, and working for the Neoconservative agenda, built up a campaign against Saddam because the Neocon’s believe it is necessary for these United States to show their supremacy throughout the world. In short, they don’t know that the cold war is over.

At any rate, Unger provides a very detailed and apparently well-researched article that proves there is a massive conspiracy to bring about a war that no one really wants in the first place.

Now we have the Mother Jones magazine issue of October 2006, in which is presented a timeline of events leading up to the war with Iraq. It seems that the tie in of the neoconservatives is rather large. On September 20th, 2001, the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) sent a letter to the President stating-“’Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from Power’” (63). The PNAC has a very interesting aspect to it; here is a short list of some of its key players: Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz. It should also be noted that this same organization was somewhat responsible for regime change in Iraq becoming national policy. In January of 1998 the PNAC demanded that “President Clinton undertake the ’removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime’” (62). At the end of October 1998, President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act, making the regime change national policy.

It would seem that Bush took this policy to the extreme because he had a personal vendetta against Saddam. He is quoted as saying in March of 2002, “’Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out” (64). Following this just a few months later, in September he is quoted saying,
“’After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad.’” Back in March a Downing Street Memo was published saying, “’It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam’” (Mother Jones 65). That says it; Bush had a grudge and used the nation to fulfill it.

He accomplished this using false information and by misleading statements. Not only that, but he also, acted like a bulldozer to get this information. He started by telling Richard Clark, “‘I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this’” (Mother Jones 63).

Mr. Bush may have had a grudge but he did know how to play the political game. During the build up to war, while everyone else was gathering information, preparing war plans and trying to tie Saddam to the terrorists, Bush kept saying we aren’t going to war until I say so. He also made statements to alleviate fears about being trapped in another Vietnam situation. He said at one point in October 2000, that he wouldn’t commit troops until he had an exit strategy (Mother Jones 62). While make statements that he wasn’t going to take us to war, he had is administration make plans for such. Just a few months before actually going to war, without a real exit strategy, he asked Mr. Rumsfeld, -“’What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret,’” this was in November of 2001 (Mother Jones 63). The fact that he didn’t have an exit or postwar plan is alluded to in the Downing Street Memo of March of 2002 just before the war started it says, “’Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions…what happens the morning after?’” (Mother Jones 64). Another Downing Street Memo is quoted as saying, “’US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…. We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq,’” in March of 2002 (Mother Jones 64-65).

While Mr. Bush is pressing all of his assets for information and spin to get the war movement going, his staff and allies seem to have been trying to undermine the whole thing. Secretary of State Powell was cited as saying, “Saddam ‘has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,’” in February 2002 (Mother Jones 62). British intelligence says there is only “’sporadic and patchy’ evidence of Iraqi WMD. ‘There is no intelligence on any production facilities’” (Mother Jones 64). Now the case against war should have been strong enough to dissuade just about any leader from persuing it. Yet, as we know the President continues to push ahead, bulldozing under anything that gets in his way.

We have the President acting neutral toward the idea of war, presenting the attitude that he will do as he must. In the background however, he is pushing his administration to build a case for war and the removal of Saddam using any means and resources it can. Vice President Cheney is talking up a storm with the media saying that Saddam is trying to restart his nuclear and bio-weapons programs, and making claims that Saddam is involved with the terrorists. He keeps saying this even while reports are made to the contrary.

During this run up and heavy handed propaganda time frame our allies are calling for time and to let the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs. France becomes the extreme case and suffers US retaliation by the House cafeteria renaming ‘French Fries’ ‘Freedom Fries’. Here it should be noted that the House of Representatives is the branch of government that has first dibs on the national budget. In the beginning and until fighting actually starts there has been no budget assigned to the war. The President refused to give any figures until after fighting had started. No motivation has been given or speculated on for this course of action, but I suspect no figure was given because no one knew. With in a few weeks of the start, the President asks for 74 plus billion dollars in an emergency appropriation. From all of my research, the war has been funded through these emergency appropriations until these last couple of years. Currently the price tag for Iraq has exceeded 500 billion dollars. This next budget round will see an overall military spending increase of 48% since the President has taken office and seven percent over this last year. There is a request for an emergency appropriation for 70 billion dollars to finish out this year and go into the next. While another 50 billion is being requested for the remained of next year. 500 billion plus another 120 billion totals 620 billion dollars. Lets look back at the beginning again. The President wanted to give citizens a 700 plus billion dollar tax break in the form of rebates. Congress shaved off 100 billion because they thought it was too much, next they shaved off even more because now we have talk of war. In the end we only got 365 billion in rebates. Just think, in three years the President and his little vendetta has cost us all, almost two times our rebates. Lets not mention that this vendetta has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of our own soldiers. Sure, Saddam could be called evil because he used a disgusting method to put down an up rising. Sure, he tried to build up these disgusting things and nuclear weapons. But, as we know, he had no connection with terrorists, no connection with any country that could give him WMD material. He had no connections. However, the things that we can easily see with this situation in hind sight are there was little or no internal violence, and he did limit the Sunni-Shiite temper. He may not have achieved a level that the West would have liked but he did keep it down.

Right now Iraq is war torn, suffering internal strife and a failing government. While serving in Bosnia/Herzegovina I learned something that one can only learn from being on the ground and talking with everyday folks. I learned that countries with extreme religious oppositions won’t get along well enough to form a steady working government. On the base camp we rarely saw a Serb working in the same place as a Muslim. Talking to either a Serb or a Muslim one would get the same answer to the question: what do you think will happen when we leave? We’ll go back to fighting. That’s the way it has always been. About the only time in the last couple thousand years of history that the Former Yugoslavia has had a lasting stretch of peace was when it was under the USSR. The USSR ruled with an iron fist and keep the peace with howitzers and tanks.

We here in these United States have it easy and somehow we make our differences work for us. In other parts of the world, cultures are based on so much hatred of differences that they cannot see past it. It’ll most likely take generations upon generations of exposure to other cultures before we get past wars that are based on opposing ideologies. That long again, before we have leaders that understand how to work with different cultures and not use force to impose their culture. For the duration we’ll have a continuous cause and effect situation as we have today. Ideological differences cause social friction with the effect being the dominant culture, the more powerful one, will attempt to force its self on the lesser. Currently we have the west with its ideology of Christianity, secular governance, and academic achievement, which is opposed by the Middle Eastern ideology of sectarian rule and piety according to the laws of their holy books. For us, an academic degree is favorable, while for them, achieving a pious state is favorable. For us ultimate liberty is the most righteous pursuit while for them it seems following the holy law is the most righteous.

In the end, time will tell what will happen. Cultures and humanity are ever evolving and our actions are determined by cause and effect. To change the course of culture and humanity takes a long time or a lot of extreme conscious effort. A careful, in-depth look at history will show one that forcibly change has taken great leaders or massive empires, or taken centuries or millennia. It might be that we are now in the midst of a major historical change in the course of culture and humanity.