Gay Pride

Prof. Atta
PHIL 323

How to Actually Have the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

The concept of same-sex marriage is currently a controversial idea across the nation. I believe it is possible to arrive at an amicable solution, but there is an important discussion regarding the route that must be taken in order to arrive at this solution. Both sides continue to argue over their respective philosophical differences and I am not attempting to determine which side provides the best answer, but instead, point out the issues that exist within the structure of the debate. My goal is to play the role of the telephone repair man, simply providing for a more clear dialogue between callers, without having to decide which speaker is right. I believe that the gay rights movement has been greatly impeded by the champions of their own cause. The significant rallying events are commonly referred to in connection with the word “Pride”, such as a “Gay Pride Parade”, “Gay Pride Day”, “LGBT Pride March”, etc. In fact, you can add the word “pride” to almost any city’s name and find their gay pride website, like pridela.com or longbeachpride.com. This is the first stumbling block towards achieving their main goal: legally recognized same-sex marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or whatever other name one prefers to use. I understand there may be other goals as well, but those come secondary. According to Webster’s dictionary, pride is defined as “a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people” but it can also mean “a feeling that you are more important or better than other people”. Unfortunately it is often difficult to disentangle the two, but it is generally accepted that taking pride in one’s own work is to be commended, but being prideful is frowned upon. It is illogical to take pride in the fact of ones sexuality. If, as most gay-rights activists argue, being homosexual is biological and not a choice, then it is not an accomplishment to be taking pride in, especially not anymore than a heterosexual person should be prideful of their own sexuality. People should not be taking pride in any ascribed status, whether it is gender or race or sexuality. If someone is a bigot for proclaiming “white pride” then how is having gay pride any different?
Some argue that it is different because minority groups have been historically oppressed, whereas white (men) have not, but that does not justify or explain how the pride itself or the ideology is any different. The situations may be different and the historical contexts may be different, but having black/white/straight/gay pride still all boil down to the same concept: being proud of something for which one has no control over or did not achieve. To argue that it is justifiable for one group and not the other, would be the same as claiming that it is not acceptable for a New York baseball fan to have Yankees-Pride because they are consistently the winners, but then deem it only acceptable for a Chicago fan to feel Cubs-Pride because they have been comparatively oppressed. Usually when any minority group wants to achieve some sort of legal status or recognition, it needs to establish a coalition of support from members of the majority group (outsiders). These allies will be needed to help vote and legislate in favor of the minority position, convince other similar members of the majority group to also provide support, as well as amplify the voice of the minority group. The rights of any minority (within a democracy) depend upon the greater majority bestowing those rights, either actively or passively; while it is true that a government can enact laws that do so, any government or court system that consistently acts against the will of the majority is eventually overthrown or voted out of office. The best way to convince another person to empathize with one’s own plight is to convince them of possible similarities within their own life, in other words, the problem must be relatable. For example, when civil rights activists wanted to end racial discrimination an effective plea to white people was to ask them how they would feel if they were discriminated against simply because they were white. Also, in order to even have that conversation of relatability, the person expressing grievances must be taken seriously. The issue of legitimacy is an important negotiating factor. A parent might be able to relate to their toddler complaining about an early bedtime, but that does not mean the complaint must seriously be taken into consideration. These are the two significant failings of the same sex marriage movement. The same-sex marriage movement has hindered their relatability aspect by proclamations of gay pride. The argument (which is finally but still slowly transitioning towards) should be one of gay rights, and consequently, civil rights. Compare how successful Martin Luther King Jr. was espousing civil rights against the more militant leaders, like Malcolm X, who advocated “Black Pride”. Civil rights are inclusive, everyone can relate to their benefits in one way or another; group pride is exclusive, you are only permitted to enjoy that pride or relate to that pride if you belong to that group. Another barricade to establishing empathy from outsiders is the scope to which the same-sex movement has grown. By attempting to strengthen their own position (and size) they have included other members which make it more difficult to relate to. The common acronym is now LGBTQIA: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual. This is very different than black people incorporating Asians, or Latinos into their alliance because their issue was still a singular one: race discrimination. “Lesbian” and “gay” should simply be replaced by “homosexual”. Same sex marriage advocates do not need to distinguish if the partners are male or female. Bisexuals open up a Pandora’s Box of issues (multiple partners, polygamy, etc) that only hinder the extension of marriage rights from heterosexual couples. Currently it is easier to address the problem as a binomial one, if the bisexual desires to marry the opposing gender, then they can; if they desire to marry their same gender, they are unable to as of now, which is simply saying they would then be in favor of same-sex marriage. Transgender, queer, and intersex, have similar problems to that of the bisexual, but their issues are no longer same sex marriage/gay rights. Their problems are of gender/identity, not orientation, it is important not to conflate the two. Obviously an asexual person has no desire to be married so it is illogical to even include them in the same sex marriage debate. I understand there are a lot of similarities and relevant issues between the different groups that relate to sexual practices that are considered minority and/or taboo, however they do not necessitate a position within the same sex marriage movement. The inclusion of extraneous factors only hinders the conversation. It is easier for a “normal” heterosexual person to understand and relate to the idea of two people in a loving relationship getting married, even if it is two males or two females. It is less likely for that same person to be able to relate to a transgender person or even clearly understand what their position in the debate might be. The previously mentioned “Gay Pride” parades are conspicuous examples that actually contribute to a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals, instead of bridging an alliance. These demonstrations not only make it more difficult for a straight person to relate to a gay person, but also make it more difficult to even take their cause seriously. Seeing all kinds of people dressed up in costume, or conversely, wearing next to nothing, marching down the middle of the street does not prove or establish any important cause. These events are more about the expression of various sexuality or gender ideas and not necessarily about civil rights being recognized. Unfortunately, every type of negative stereotype is on display and possibly encouraged. When one even mentions a pride parade, most people (especially detractors) imagine the Village People marching up and down performing obnoxious or profane acts in public. Regardless of whether that is the correct psychological response, is that the first image any movement wants to be associated with? Imagine two distinctly different groups of black people marching down different avenues in your city. One group looks presentable, dressed in business casual or professionally, and their protestations are in terms of civil rights, and discrimination, and legal equity. The other group encompasses all of the worst possible stereotypes assigned to black people. This group looks like the members of a gang participating in a rap music video, with baggy clothes, excessive costume jewelry, facial tattoos, etc and their declarations are of black pride or black power. Which group’s cause is more likely to be taken seriously? One can argue why this might be morally wrong or an objectionable example, but it is still essentially true that one group appears to have a legitimate voice and the other does not. Imagine two parents walking their three young children to the park. Now imagine this family carrying a sign to the park. The sign says something about equal rights for all families. Finally, imagine the parents are two dads instead of a dad and a mom. Some will still find this idea unacceptable, but for the most part, a lot more people will at least be more likely to relate to this family, and view their grievances as legitimate ones. In order for the same-sex marriage advocates to be on a more equal footing in the marriage debate, some flaws in their approach need to be removed. First, the discussion has to move away from gay pride and be centered on civil rights. Secondly, the conversation must be focused on a singular and clear issue: recognizing the authenticity of homosexual relationships. Only when the other issues of gender/identity are disregarded can the claims be made that the same marriage and rights that heterosexual couples are afforded should be extended to homosexual couples. It is encumbering the debate to simultaneously argue on behalf of irrelevant factors. Lastly, proponents of same-sex marriage should be making their arguments from a more recognizable position by having a reasonable appearance. A productive conversation is more likely to happen between two similar looking and acting people than between the assless chaps wearing, “flaming” homosexual and the collared shirt wearing, bible toting, “defender of marriage”. The Gay-Pride /LGBTQIA parades have brought considerable static to the same-sex marriage conversation. Perhaps only after these issues are removed from the conversation can a more equitable and logical solution be found.

Bibliography

"Pride." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. .

Bibliography: "Pride." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. .