By Adi Chowdhury
Regardless of the fact that they trip over themselves insisting that their actions and words are not “hatred” or “bigotry”, the anti-gay crusade that calls much of the world home persists in its state of naivety, intolerance, and outright denial of reason and compassion. Lurking behind the limp facades of “sanctity of marriage” and “one man, one woman” are bastions of unreason and ignorance, the propellers of loathing and misunderstanding. The qualities that are emblematic of the anti-gay crowd are the qualities marking the deterioration of compassion, love, logic, and science. The qualities that are enforced by lack of understanding and lack of research. The qualities that are instilled through indoctrination and superstition. The qualities that lead masses to shun critical thinking in favor of dogma and dissipation of mutual respect.
The chants and vigorous sentiment heard at anti-gay marches and conventions reflect the core essence at the heart of the movement: baseless and devoid of facts, only unsubstantiated emotions backed more by religious tradition than legitimate information. “One man, one woman” and “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” are equal in their commonality and also in their laughable baselessness. The energetic claims of “preserving the sanctity of marriage” is a defense perpetrated to justify the suppression of gay rights–despite the fact that much of the anti-gay movement’s hate-driven hyperbole undermines the basis of marriage: love, not reproduction.
“One man, one woman” is a chant ubiquitous among the right wing, spouted by conservatives without cessation. This slogan is intended to defend the social perception of marriage as heterosexual, eliminating the possibility of same-sex unions. A blind and stumbling slogan is apt for such a blind and stumbling movement. This chant–“one man, one woman”–is consistently tossed into a debate without any logical support for such a claim. The chant is assumed to be self-explanatory, as if it is oh-so-obvious that marriage is preordained to be “straight.” As if it is a crystal-clear fact that a wedding should only have one bride, one groom. The problem with this slogan is that already assumes, quite naively, that marriage is self-defined as heterosexual. This fails as a legitimate argument against gay marriage because it offers nothing more than a catchphrase– it provides zero basis for its claim, zero evidence, zero logical support.
A claim wielded generously in the gay rights debate is the argument that “gays cannot have children, and therefore have no place in a marriage.” Based on this argument, all of the following should be banned since they cannot have children:
- marriage between a man and a barren (sterile) woman
- marriage between a man and a woman both too old to conceive
- marriage between a couple who choose not to have children
Yet the anti-gay movement has never advocated for the illegalization of such marriages. This reeks of inconsistency, and is a tell-tale sign that this movement actually cares very, very little about the sanctity of marriage–and is instead hell-bent on suppressing the rights of gay communities rather than defending the “purity” of institutionalized love. If the anti-gay crusade authentically believed that gay marriages are corrupt because they cannot produce children, then one must raise the question as to why the same activists do not rally against the other forms of marriage listed above.
A practice perpetuated generously by the anti-gay movement is science denial. The homophobic activists are entrenched in their reverence for fraudulent doctrine and persist in their rejection of validated, research-based data and analytical conclusions. A easy pick of an example is the common claim that gay parents “will not be able to raise children as well as straight parents.” This myth is debunked repeatedly and thoroughly by institutes such as the American Sociological Association:
“…There is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. We discuss challenges and opportunities for new research on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families.”
As well as a study by Columbia Law School:
“We identified 78 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 74 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment, and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the wellbeing of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.
Nothing in science, or in any system of thought that can be considered a culmination of logical investigation, suggests that gay parents will proliferate corruption and weaken the moral basis of society. Nothing in decades of research, and nothing in any nation that has recognized gay rights, indicates that allowing freedom of consensual, safe sexuality will lead to ethical decay or moral bankruptcy. In fact, just about all advancements of gay rights only further solidify the fact that this progressive movement marks the betterment of mankind, and the state of life for all.
The anti-gay crusade has been notoriously unaware of this.