Monday, January 26, 2009

13 Bad Arguments against 13 Bad Arguments for Gay Marriage

Just found an absolutely ancient article (read: 4 years old) that serves as a refutation of "13 bad arguments for gay marriage".  Yep.  I'm sure you can tell that I've already got my Irish up.
Argument 1 is that "gay marriage is a basic human right".  

Rebuttal:  "We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married."
Ohhh.  This little issue.  Suffice it say:  two of those are prohibitions of the same thing (polygamy), and only one of those restrictions should be a restriction (namely, age of consent) because it applies almost universally and is less arbitrary and authoritarian.
Argument 2:  "gay marriage is a civil right"

Rebuttal:  "This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage."
So it is only a "civil rights issue" when there is otherwise no difference between the people involved?  I guess that makes sense.  Not really sure how homosexual "love" can be considered to be any different than any other form of "love" though, and there should be no inherent differences in marriage, save for the inability for them to be easily decide which of them should be commanding the other to do housework, raise whatever children they have, and perform sexual favors at a whim .  That's the only kind of marriage I can't picture a homosexual couple pulling off as effectively, but I am sure it can be done. Just because you have some African Americans who want to say that it is not a civil rights issue, and that you think that the same sets of genitalia throw marriage out of balance in such a manner that two people of the same gender should never be allowed to be wed, does not make you have a point.
Argument 3:  Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination.
Rebuttal:  "Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman."
First off, bullshit on "rightly restrict marriage against polygamists".  Those restrictions were developed almost exclusively to discriminate against Mormons.  Of course, now we can also see how it is more practical to have monogamous relationships.  But I still hardly agree that the restriction was right to begin with.  And the argument from "things have always been this way" hardly passes muster, since you could just as easily defend slavery with the same sentiment.  Just because we always had certain discriminatory practices does not make it less discriminatory today.
Argument 4:  Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would just be a development in its ever-changing definition.
Rebuttal: "True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship."
Well, will you look at that.  How exactly is marriage changing from what amounts to sex slavery to an equal partnership that exists independent of actual offspring (or even intent to bear offspring) less of a leap than making it so that partnership doesn't have gender requirements?  I guess this one's just a matter of interpretation, isn't it?  Ahhh, but you'd never admit that!
Argument 5:  "Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state"  [WTF!?]
Rebuttal:  "But the separation of church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment."
Well, they are right for once:  this was a bad argument.  If they had made it less of a strawman, and brought up churches being used to tell people how to vote on gay marriage issues, then maybe less so.  But, as is, they can have this one.  Congratulations, guys!
Argument 6:  "Marriage is necessary for gays to get important legal benefits"
Rebuttal:  "Homosexuals don't need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won't solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated....Another example is Social Security benefits. Children's benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband's Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor's benefit—and she must choose one or the other."
And what if the patient can't express their wishes....as in the Terry Schiavo case?  These marriage rights exist so that you don't have to go through all that bureaucratic crap that you offer as alternatives.  Also, any partner that is an immigrant becomes a legal citizen, marriage partners get insurance and tax benefits, and there is also disability and Veteran's benefits that they can both benefit from.  Sure, these may not be "rights", but you also can't play it off like you aren't depriving them of anything but the magic word "married".
Argument 7:  "There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriage of heterosexuals"
Rebuttal:  (LOL) "If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly....Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway"
Ahahahaha.  Okay.  Let me summarize the hilarity briefly:  their counterargument is that the climate that fosters gay marriage acceptance is a climate where divorce rates and cohabitation are higher.  But, unfortunately, all this means is that places where people see how meaningless heterosexual marriage has become are more willing to let the gays have their fun and get marriage too!  Correlation is not causation, and the wording of the rebuttal itself emphasizes this by claiming that the collective opinion about marriage is the cause of both the acceptance of gay marriage and the "virtual disapperance" of marriage.  So, they've made their own counterargument a non-argument for me.  That was nice of them.
Argument 8:  "Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting"
Rebuttal:  "Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families"
Well...can't argue against name-drops.   It's why generalized arguments that consist entirely of mentioning authority figures that you somehow deem to be greater authority on the subject than everyone else always win!  As for the last sentence, it is nice to see that homosexual parents are bad because they might raise homosexual children.  Also:  I link here again to deal with the "gay molestor" charges.
Argument 9:  "The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation"
Rebuttal:  "Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse."
Had to look this seemingly significant idiom up.  I have no idea what the hell they are talking about (unless they are preposing that marriage just means "vow to not have sex with other people" and, thus, is not explicitly about procreation!)  The exceptions prove that there are exceptions, which proves that marriage isn't strictly about the offspring anymore.  The fact that marriages are no longer annulled when they fail to have children, and the fact that couples who cannot and have decided not to have children also lends credence to this.  Sure, marriage also prevents a person from having a child with someone else (except, you know, in polygamous societies).  But, the fact remains that marriage, right now, in our culture is offered without a mind for whether or not they bear any children, primarily because we don't need any more goddamn people anymore.  The government no longer has a vested interest in seeing people breed like rabbits, because we already have more than enough people in the country with lessened death rates due to the whole "industrialization" thing. 
Argument 10:  "Heterosexuals have done a terrible job at marriage.  Who are they to speak?"  (Please note that this "argument" is normally offered up jokingly.  At least in my experience...)
Rebuttal: "Yet the point is not how many are successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have conceded is the ideal"
Can't argue with the first point.  As for the second point:  it is currently an institution that is almost exclusively about heterosexual "love", and is allowed to several who have no biological possibility for children.   Just take out "heterosexual" and you've granted the gays their requests.  As for the sexual fidelity thing: that's a personal preference.  If you have an issue with that, take it up with swingers.
Argument 11:  "The resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for homosexuals"  [Awww...they forgot "and stubborn adherence to particular political and religious ideologies, usually poorly thought out, and itself motivated by fear and loathing in general"]
Rebuttal:  "While no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual—and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success of this complementarity"
"Vast majority"?  The "vast majority" seem to still be hateful, but mask that behind the rationalization that they are "protecting traditional marriage", or, in other words, striving for the status quo.  As I mentioned above, the argument that "things have always been this way" is not the best argument in a debate about equal application of traditionally unequally applied rights.  Also...why the hell would they think that "complementarity" (i.e. "penis goes in vagina") is a good argument?  They have no idea whether gay couples are complements in every area of their existence save gender, and have yet to legislate that people must only marry their opposites, lest they take offense at seeing people not adhering to the dictum of "opposites attract".  
Argument 12:  "Those who resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted" [Isn't this Argument 11 in ad hominem form?]
Rebuttal:  "The gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society."
Oh my.  I think we've just struck gold!
For one:  "traditional marriage" millenia ago is not the "traditional marriage" of today.  You may try to pretend otherwise, but...well...I guess you do that about everything else anyway, so why not?  
Anyway, they were not necessarily "irrational and bigoted" because they were not in societies that have our understanding of homosexuality, nor were they in societies where they had the privilege of marriage being an institution based on love.  They needed it for procreation, because they needed to survive.  And, they weren't as egalitarian and almost every respect in their societies as we are on our own.  So, it is comparing Bronze age apples to Information age oranges here.
"Common sense understanding" isn't necessarily right.  Especially when "common sense" just means "gut instinct" instead of obvious, intuitive logic.
As for "reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life", I would looooove for him to elaborate on that.  Somehow, I foresee something about paintings and a vague sense of spirituality that religion as an institution may actually inhibit, depending on its social role and doctrines.  And, I am really sorry that reason has dissolved marriage, and society, and children, or whatever you are talking about.  But, marriage is basically just a secular contract, with an optional religion candy-coating.  Which is what makes the religious-minded whining against gay marriage all the more infuriating.
Argument 13:  "The legal issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states"
Rebuttal:  "Quite the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national definition is ample—the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases regarding marriage."
Agree that a definition would be helpful.  Love the "activist judges" shot (which is right-winger speak for: "judge that makes rulings that I disagree with"), and I am afraid that, when it comes to minority rights, majority rule is not a good venue.  
"In sum, there are many bad reasons for supporting gay marriage. In contrast, there are many good reasons for protecting historic understandings of marriage, a public institution whose fate will determine the future of our society."
I guess we'll have to take your word for that, because you sure didn't give us any indication that there were any in the actual post.  Unless your implied argument that "it is historic, therefore it should stay exactly the same, regardless of changing contexts" is supposed to be profound or something, I am still waiting for those "good reasons".

26 comments:

Stacy said...

I guess it is also wrong for old people to marry each other right??

Not of child bearing age anymore - so what's the point? (snark)

I know - let's vote on it. (sigh)

Asylum Seeker said...

That's the opposite end of their "it's historical!" game: even if marriage is supposed to be for procreation, we didn't have a method for discriminating against old men and their desires to marry (I doubt they frankly cared about the women), regardless of their fertility or the fertility of their mates. And, since we've always allowed that, it's AWWRIGHT.

Stacy said...

I don't want you to lose sleep tonight - but check this out. Not too far O/T

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/lesbians_a_mystery_to_city_md_complaint_filed_heres_what_could_happen38441529.html

(sigh)

Stacy said...

Aack!! It didn't let me post the whole link! What to do??

I'll go post it at my blog - goat comments.

The Maze Monster said...

I think marriage should be more exclusive actually. Of course, gays and straights should all be allowed to marry. However, like giving birth, I often think that people should be required to take a test and receive extensive counciling and training before marriage or kids.

See, I'm so anti-freedom sometimes lol. I just don't think certain people should reproduce (like DMX) and unfortunately those are the ones who have like 8 kids! (literally)

mac said...

I have used this analogy before....

I don't eat seafood. Lobster, shrimp, crabs etc. are waterbugs to me, YUCK. I cannot see why people would eat such a thing. I do NOT, however, feel as though people who do eat these things are wrong, or evil, or defective. They just have different tastes.

I am not a homosexual. The whole attraction of another man escapes me, I don't understand it. I do NOT, however, feel that someone who is homosexual is wrong or evil or defective.


I guess I fail to see how two people who are in love threaten another person's marriage, or the sanctity of marriage. Straight couples have done a fine job of screwing screwing that up themselves.

pboyfloyd said...

Completely off topic(What can I say, you nailed it!), rhwew'a guy in Brazil running for mayor by changing his name to Barack Obama.

I think it would WORK!!!

pboyfloyd said...

BTW 'rhwew' is CODE for 'there'!

Trying to keep the name changing idea 'on the sly', I guess.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

The tables need to be turned. Rather than debating the logical notion that social conventions evolve over time with advances in our understanding, why not ask of the religious why the rest of us should in any way be affected by their arbitrary beliefs? Religion is allowed to take the position of bedrock arbiter of morals only if we neglect the history of religion. No religious faith has failed to undergo the same transformations over time as any other ethical moral codes. Christianity for example has literally thousands of sects which have developed and budded off over the last 2 millennia (itself a bud from the tree of Judaism). The sects still debate the nature of the trinity and the nature of Christ. Why should we allow transient belief structures to act as if they are eternal?

Stacy said...

"Why should we allow transient belief structures to act as if they are eternal?"

Good point.

pboyfloyd said...

"Hot lesbian action!"

Here's the link that Stacy was trying to make.

pboyfloyd said...

.. in other news, a doctor is in intensive care in Winnipeg, Canada. Doctors confirm that he or she has contracted the worst case of 'the Willies' on record.

A spokesman said, "He or she just keeps repeating, 'Lesbians..Brrr!', and we feel that the sight of one more homosexual could plunge him or her into eternal damnation!"

Asylum Seeker said...

"I often think that people should be required to take a test and receive extensive counciling and training before marriage or kids."

Which brings up an interesting thought I've brought up here before: why the hell do these people think that it is people who are trying to broaden the definition of marriage to be more inclusive are the ones who are "devaluing marriage"? I say this because these are the same people who stress that you need to have marriage before you can have children, or before you can even have sex. Who exactly is doing more damage to marriage as an institution: the people who want to open it up to loving couples who desperately want to marry but have been disallowed by tradition alone, or the people who demand that otherwise incompatible people become married before learning about that incompatibility. They bitch about children being born out of wedlock and about premarital sex, but at the same time, when people get married just so that they have sex for the first time, or have a shotgun wedding like Bristol Palin when already pregnant, you're setting more people up for terrible marriages and inevitable divorce than gay marriage ever could.

"I don't eat seafood. Lobster, shrimp, crabs etc. are waterbugs to me, YUCK. I cannot see why people would eat such a thing."

Agreed. Care to protest Red Lobster with me? ;)

" Straight couples have done a fine job of screwing screwing that up themselves."

Now, was that supposed to be an argument for gay marriage or just a jocular closing remark? Because, you see, the authors of the article and myself have different perspectives on that issue...

"BTW 'rhwew' is CODE for 'there'!"

Consider this thread won!

"Religion is allowed to take the position of bedrock arbiter of morals only if we neglect the history of religion. No religious faith has failed to undergo the same transformations over time as any other ethical moral codes."

And, to top that off, religion does not and should not have any place in these arguments to begin with. Aside from influencing their opinions on homosexuality, it has little relevance to marriage as it exists today, but they try to not acknowledge even that, the present day reality, let alone the heterogeneous nature of their religion, and how their religious opinions on the matter are as objectively relevant as any other religious perspective. They must see that it is arbitrary, but they are experts at ignoring what is right in front of them.

"Hot lesbian action"

...ugh. That doctor needs to find a new damn job. Unless there are some diseases that only lesbians can have can have, or they have anatomies that are too unique to be comparable to hetero females, there is no reason to say, without even examining them, that you are unable to treat them. Unwilling, perhaps. Why you would be unwilling, however, and how you could finagle your religious beliefs to justify that, is beyond me. And absolutely disgusting.

mac said...

Sorry Seeker.
Yes, it is just a funny.

I do, however wonder what is "the sanctity of marriage"?

I mean, the divorce rates are pretty high and marriage is not doing so good for me lately(or, I'm not doing so good for it?). Whatever could homosexuals do to destroy the sanctity of marriage that hasn't already been done by the people who are married now, and in the past.

I think it's fear that holds these anti-gay foolks back. Fear that if they allow gay marriage, they may become gay themselves, as if it's contagious...or worse their kids might become homos.

mac said...

It's like I said over at Staceys place.

Parts is Parts.
I fail to see the difference on a medical level.

sunnyskeptic said...

I do consider the right to marry for heterosexuals or homosexuals a separation of state and church issue.

I think of it this way:
If you want to get married, you HAVE to apply for a marriage license in your state, which is a legal document and is secular. You can have a giant wedding in a church where they say 'god' every other word, but you're still not legally married unless you have your marriage license...

The male/female or bride/groom designation on a marriage license is totally arbitrary, and could easily be changed. (In some cases, it already is listed as Person 1 and Person 2.)

Therefore, to me, to deny a marriage license to someone who is homosexual is using strictly religious reasons to deny someone a human right. Separation of state and church violated.

Mandar Malum said...

I really have nothing to add, everyone has pretty much stated my own thoughts. If they want to make arguments against gay marriage, then they need to make better ones than what they do...

Unfortunately, I think that the decision to leave it up to the states to decide is a bad idea... there are too many close minded and religious people who do not understand such things...

Another great post!

Asylum Seeker said...

Stupid Google Chrome...took me forever to get here!

"Sorry Seeker.
Yes, it is just a funny."

Sorry to you. It was a joke in reference to my comment that that remark you made is usually only presented as a joking remark. Which, for you, it was. And I am pretty sure that it is with most people as well. Just trying to do a little field research on that assumption (well.....sure, let's go with that).

"If you want to get married, you HAVE to apply for a marriage license in your state, which is a legal document and is secular. You can have a giant wedding in a church where they say 'god' every other word, but you're still not legally married unless you have your marriage license..."

Hear, hear.

"Unfortunately, I think that the decision to leave it up to the states to decide is a bad idea... there are too many close minded and religious people who do not understand such things..."

Agree. But, I assume it would be worse for there to be the same close minded and religious people in positions of power preventing ANY state from having those rights. It's the problem of state vs. federal rights. The first is bad if you have some localized bigotry and stupidity, and the second is bad if you have a widespread trend of bigotry and stupidity. And, unfortunately, states' rights are preferrable when both conditions are true.

Mandar Malum said...

"I assume it would be worse for there to be the same close minded and religious people in positions of power preventing ANY state from having those rights."

I agree. It is unfortunate that religious bias exists when it comes to our politicians. In a perfect world, the people who are elected to positions of power would be the best suited for the job... sadly it rarely works that way.

Asylum Seeker said...

The best suited for the job, slightly unbiased, and/or nominally intelligent. Being able to claim that the people who run our country are any of those things would be fantastic. Luckily, I think Obama may qualify as (at least) nominally intelligent and willing to put aside some of whatever biases he brings to the table. But, I am also afraid that he is going to be too bipartisan, and let conservatives walk all over him, being too unbiased on subjects where he is right. And, I also fear that he is going to stumble when trying to keep the balance between his professed desire to keep a separation of church and state and his simultaneous plan to expand "faith-based initiatives". So needless to say, I am worried. Especially when it became clear that being a Democrat doesn't necessarily mean that you accept gay marriage this election. Uggghh...

Richelle said...

it never fails, every time i read an argument against gay marriage i can't help but be floored by the utter stupidity of some people.

it's as if all these homophobes (they deny it, but they are homophobes) believe if we allow gay marriage heterosexual people are going to turn gay or something.

straight people are not going to stop having babies and creating more people for our already overpopulated planet so i don't know why that worries them so much.

they just hate to see homosexuals, who they consider second-class citizens, have the same rights they do. god forbid they have to share marriage with the people they so despise.

and all that bullshit about the definition of marriage is just a tired and pathetic argument. i honestly do not see any legal basis for why we cannot grant homosexuals the same rights to marry as any heterosexual couple.

i could see how there could be certain legal issues that would arise from allowing polygamy, but that is a separate issue and i hate it that they always try to lump the two together.

" Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families"

i smell b.s.! the homosexual kiddie-toucher scare tactic is just ridiculous. pedophilia is categorized as a separate sexual orientation just like homosexuality and heterosexuality. there is same sex pedophilia and opposite sex pedophilia. and i read a study which actually concluded if child molesters are involved in any adult relationships it is far more common for them to be heterosexual than homosexual.

so it's not your gay uncle and his partner you need to worry about. it's your straight uncle with the wife and kids!

as for the "having more homosexual experiences" bit, so what? i'm sure kids born to baptist parents have a higher instance of having "brainwashing experiences", which just because i am personally opposed to such a thing doesn't mean baptists can no longer have children.

could it possibly be that because they are more open-minded about sexuality they just aren't afraid to experiment to better understand their sexual identity?

i had some "lesbian experiences" but it didn't make me gay. it just helped me determine that i do prefer men and i am not attracted to women.

and that's that.

Asylum Seeker said...

"i smell b.s.! the homosexual kiddie-toucher scare tactic is just ridiculous. pedophilia is categorized as a separate sexual orientation just like homosexuality and heterosexuality. there is same sex pedophilia and opposite sex pedophilia. and i read a study which actually concluded if child molesters are involved in any adult relationships it is far more common for them to be heterosexual than homosexual."

I think I agree with you there ,though I do realize why, if we made this point in arguing with someone who was against gay anything, they would be unwilling to concede the point that the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality is blurred in pedophila. Though it does make sense, considering that pedophiles, by definition, are attracted to children, who lack a large number of the secondary sex characteristics that influence normal sexual attraction.

And I swear that probably the main reason why there is a large incidence of exploring with homosexuality in children raised by homosexuals is because they aren't raised in an environment where homosexuals are an "other". They are made aware of homosexuality's existence, and do not have it demonized for them (which I am sure would piss these people in of itself), which leads to them considering at as a possibility more than most people would, due to being deliberately sheltered from it. So, like you said, it is because they are more "open-minded" primarily because their parents are unable to preemptively shut it up tight. So, it is hardly a bad thing unless you are presupposing that homosexuality is inherently bad again. In which case, the debate continues to be exasperating, and I can only conclude that I will result in me putting a shotgun in my mouth, and you spontaneously combusting with rage.

Richelle said...

"...and you spontaneously combusting with rage."

lol

oh you know me too well :)

Asylum Seeker said...

I try.

pboyfloyd said...

I think the angle that we're missing here is that a guy's straightness is reinforced in society by.. marriage.

If gays can just 'go ahead' and get married, closeted gays, especially those 'got-it-backwards' Christians who 'love the sin but HATE the sinner'(it's okay for them because they're gonna be forgiven) don't really even HAVE a 'straight' front anymore.

It's like, "Sure I love you Sam, but this damned government won't let me divorce my wife to matty YOU, you're queer! No, best to let things be and I get to have a wife, a regular family and a gay time when I feel like it!"

(Yay for me!)

Asylum Seeker said...

Oh my! I think you've just solved the puzzle, pboy! That's what their concern about the "sanctity of marriage" is all about too: fear that if gay marriage is a viable option, all the good Christians fighting their own "sinful" nature will no longer be expected to grin and bear it in a socially sanctioned straight marriage, since suddenly the fact that they are gay isn't seen as a dead-end.