SB 514/Amendment One aims to amend our North Carolina State constitution to ban gay marriage. Gay marriage is against the law in North Carolina; thus, this bill serves little legal purpose. It seems the only impact this amendment will have is to engrain our stereotypical southern prejudice and ignorance into our constitution.

The amendment will be on the ballots in May’s primary. Debate on the issue will rage between citizens until May. When this issue is debated I often hear many of the same arguments being used. Arguments for both sides of the issue often contain fallacies and unintended consequences that can harm one’s point. We cannot afford to continue to debate this issue the way we have. I hope that exposing the following hazardous talking points will bring about a better debate. 

For: ”I’m not gay, but..”

There is no reason to preface your views on gay marriage with this statement. Its like prefacing a discussion on tax cuts for the rich with “I’m not rich but…” To qualify your statement is to attempt to shield your own insecurities over defending homosexuals, as if being associated with them is the worst thing in the world. Your insecurity discredits your point. 

Against: “Its not natural.”

There could not be homosexuality if it was not natural. Is it statistically more rare than heterosexuality, sure, but rarity does not define what is and isn’t natural.

The underlying thought in this argument is that marriage is meant for the production of children. But this would mean we’d have to revoke the marriage licenses of those couples that decided not to procreate. This is a policy few could get behind.

For: “I have a friend who is gay, and…”

You do not need a gay friend to have an opinion on gay marriage. These are questions of human rights and while experience may enrich your perspective, its not necessary. I have never met anyone from Darfur, but I understand the genocide of the people there is an atrocity.

Against: “A gay couple cannot raise children.”

The argument that homosexuals are so dehumanized by their defining feature that they cannot be trusted with the care of children, while categorically absurd, has no place in the debate on gay marriage. A marriage license is not a requirement for a couple to raise a child. Gay couples can adopt or even birth children without being married. The point made in this argument has no place in the marriage debate.

For: “No, the [insert your religion’s document here] says…”

Religion is not a tool that is universally used the same way. There is no standardization in religion. What one person holds true in their religion someone of their same denomination may not. Standards found between religions are even more rare.

It is impossible for this debate to take place in a religious framework, for everyone is using different rules to evaluate the same issue. One side cannot find itself a victor over another when there are no rules for engagement. 

Against: “What’s next?”                                                        

The absurdity of this argument makes it my personal favorite. The logic of this question is that if we allow for gay marriage, what will we allow next? It assumes a social spiraling and the death of all morality will ensue. Show me another example of when expanding human rights–abolishing slavery or giving women the vote–has ever lead to a decline in morality.

For: “Homosexuality is biological.”

It doesn’t matter whether someone is gay by choice or by birth. The debate over nature versus nurture implies that to be gay by choice is somehow less acceptable than being gay by birth. That would mean there is something inherently not acceptable about being gay. To make this point is not beneficial to your argument. 

Against: “I’m all for gays, but marriage is between a man and a woman.”

I must assume that if you bring forth this idea you have never opened a United States History book. We Americans have a storied history of denying minority groups access to institutions. We have used every trick in The Book to suppress people who are different, it turns out we were unequivocally wrong in all cases.  

Against: “Straight people will do it for tax breaks.”

To believe that two straight individuals would marry to save money is ridiculous. To marry these two would have to subject themselves to the ridicule for being gay. I doubt many straight people are lining up for this.

To claim that marriage for monetary gain should banned, one must also be for the abolishment of some heterosexual marriages. Marriages where one party is marrying for money accomplish the same goal.