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.