Yesterday, because apparently I’m a masochist, I sat down to read the pamphlet “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’” (yes, marriage was actually put in scare quotes) by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (you can download and read it here, should you wish it). Noting that I was due for a blog post, I set out to write rebuttals to each of the alleged “harms” that Sprigg asserts in his little pamphlet. Now, this post is a really long one (over five typewritten, single spaced, twelve point Times New Roman font pages), so I’ve objected point by point, so that you can take my rebuttal in chunks, at your leisure.
1. “Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships”
Sprigg assures us that marriage equality would mean a sudden influx of married couples demanding benefits, such as social security, insurance, etc. from the government and their employers. The horror! This is bad, Sprigg suggests, for two reasons. For one thing, this would mean that (gasp) we would be forced to give the same benefits opposite-couples enjoy to (shudder) gay couples! Oh, no! I suppose the FRC is making a pretty safe assumption that most of their readers are already going to be under the impression that homosexuality is bad by default, and must therefore be opposed, but one group’s opposition to something doesn’t mean that it should be barred from having benefits attached. I don’t much care for marriages that are presided over by Pentecostal ministers, but I don’t demand they be banned so that those couples don’t receive government and employee benefits.
The other reason Sprigg claims that same-sex couples mustn’t be allowed to claim benefits is that it would be too costly. That doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny, though, because that’s not so much an argument against marriage equality than it is an argument against marriage in general. It’s true that same-sex couples, if married, would claim benefits, but so will opposite-sex couples, and, quite frankly, there are a lot more opposite-sex couples out there. If same-sex marriages would be too great a burden on employers and the government, then opposite-sex marriage are definitely too great a burden. Until a moratorium is called on all marriage, this argument comes off as moot.
2. “Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.”
This is the point at which Sprigg cranks up the alarmism. The reader is told that children as young as five are going to learn about homosexuality! The horror! Of course, the actual text of the pamphlet undermines this assumption, detailing a kindergartener’s experience in which he was given a book that “features same-sex couples.” So, all kindergarteners are going to learn, it seems, is that same-sex couples exist. Not exactly “scrub my eyes with lye soap” material.
We are also told, however, that students in sex-ed classes are going to be taught about homosexual acts! The pamphlet describes a lesbian sex-ed teacher for the eighth grade who has incorporated descriptions of lesbian sex into her curriculum. It’s like a damn bacchanal up in here! Upon consideration, though, this doesn’t really come off as that frightening. Starting in the fourth grade, I had to take sex-ed classes, mostly as units in religion class (I went to Catholic school from preschool up through eighth grade), and then as a brief unit in health class in high school. In these classes, I was told how straight people have sex. Penis in vagina, how arousal works, blahblahblah. So, that gave me a basic idea of what was coming for me, and I filled in the rest with further research (and by “further research,” I mean reading erotica). Given the statistics, there are bound to be LGBT students in every class in public schools, and I’d say they’re just as entitled to a basic understanding of how they will one day experience intimacy as I was.
3. “Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.”
This is a pretty stock argument, and is one of the first on the field from opponents of marriage equality. Apparently, religious organizations could lose their special privileges if they don’t want to recognize marriages and other unions that the government does recognize. Now, in a world in which you can get away with criminal neglect of a child by claiming that you didn’t seek medical help for them because you had opted for faith healing, I’m skeptical of these claims that religious organizations are going to be systematically destroyed if same-sex marriages are recognized (I’m not that lucky).
Sprigg makes reference to religious schools, noting that, “in some cases they may allow students who are not believers to attend and even have staff who are not adherents of their religion.” This is where they slip up. In allowing non-adherents, these institutions surrender their claim to religious sovereignty. They are no longer organizations by and for their own religion, but businesses that serve the entire community. If you let in one sort of heathen, you can’t discriminate against other kinds.
Similarly, religious individuals working at secular businesses and institutions don’t get a free pass to go on crusade. Yes, they are given freedom to practice their religion themselves, but that does not mean that they can deny service detailed in their job description to clients just because their personal faith disagrees. A parallel would be a pagan doctor refusing to treat a police officer who was severely wounded in a shootout, citing his belief that the officer’s soul was needed by Odin in Valhalla to fight against the Jotnar. He’s welcome to think that, but he can’t selectively put his job on hold.
4. “Fewer people would marry.”
Here, the FRC points out that, where there is marriage equality, a majority of cohabiting same-sex couples are not married, as opposed to the majority of their opposite-sex counterparts that are married. Sprigg claims that this is because many same-sex couples “reject” marriage, but I’m not so sure that’s the issue, so much as they just don’t have as much pressure to. It’s true that many same-sex couples did not get married as soon as it was legal to do so, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the option. Perhaps they didn’t feel they needed the benefits at the precise moment same-sex marriage was legalized, maybe they were waiting in solidarity with people in other states who weren’t yet enjoying the same rights. Maybe they didn’t want to get married for the wrong reasons.
It is worth noting that same-sex couples aren’t subject to quite as much societal pressure to marry. Opposite-sex couples are bombarded with messages from television, movies, books, family, friends, religious organizations, and employers that suggest to them that marriage is the ultimate goal of relationships. After being together for a long time, it is simply expected that opposite-sex couples will get married, because that’s what you do. Same-sex couples have never been subject to these societal pressures, and are thus probably not as eager to jump headfirst into marriage.
This, it would seem, is what strikes fear into Peter Sprigg’s heart. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry and don’t all immediately marry, he argues, then maybe opposite-sex couples will start to view marriage as an option, rather than a necessary outcome of relationships. This is the point at which Sprigg loses me. If opposite-sex couples don’t feel that they have to get married, then they won’t get married, he says. To me, this comes off as just an example of ever changing societal norms, nothing to really get worked up over. Sprigg, however, assumes that everyone reading this pamphlet thinks marriage is important in and of itself. If it is, in fact, important, then people will continue to do it regardless of whether they have the option not.
5. “Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.”
In this section, Sprigg states that same-sex couples aren’t strictly monogamous as often as opposite-sex couples. He goes on to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry and be non-monogamous, then married opposite-sex couples will be non-monogamous. I take issue with his argument here for a few reasons.
First of all, I don’t think I agree with Sprigg’s assertion that opposite-sex couples will necessarily start to be non-monogamous at much higher rates. I have no desire to be non-monogamous, even though I am well aware that non-monogamous couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, exist. This is a common thread I’ve noticed in conservative Christian arguments. They seem to be under the impression that everyone is just itching to go out and screw everybody, and are only barely held at bay by the constraints of marriage. People who want to sleep with lots of people are going to sleep with lots of people, and people who want to sleep with one person are going to sleep with one person.
My second objection is to Sprigg’s assertion that non-monogamy is inherently bad. Cheating, I would agree, is bad, but not because it involves having sex with multiple people, but rather because it is a breach of trust. If all parties involved are alright with non-monogamy, then so be it. Be safe, and enjoy. Once again, it’s an example of fundies assuming that everyone shares their values.
6. “Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.”
Here, Sprigg points out that many same-sex relationships don’t last as long as opposite-sex relationships, on average. According to Sprigg, if same-sex couples are given equal rights but do not stay together as long as opposite-sex couples, then opposite-sex couples will start to stay together for shorter periods of time. So, more or less a recap of the previous argument, that being “If gay people can marry, then straight people will act like gay people, which is bad, because I said so.”
7. “Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.”
This is another favorite of marriage equality opponents. They claim that children must be raised by a married, heterosexual couple, because those children perform better than children who are not raised my married, heterosexual couples. While technically true, it is a fallacy in this context. The reason that children being raised by married, heterosexual parents appear to perform better, on average, is that they’re not just being compared to the adopted children of same-sex couples, but to the children of unwed teen mothers, broken households, and single parents who cannot spend enough time raising children because they must work to feed those children.
Toward the end of this section, we are treated to another of Sprigg’s delightful little exercises in circular logic. Citing a study of the adopted children of lesbian couples, he announces that:”
- Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.
- Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.
- Daughters of lesbians are ‘more sexually adventurous and less chaste.’”
At this point, I shrugged and said “so what?” So what if people don’t adhere to some gender binary checklist? So what if people are more open to their sexual attractions? So what if women enjoy sex? Notice that Sprigg doesn’t seem to be worried about young men not being chaste, just young women. Taken alongside his apparent shock at the notion that people might not conform to antiquated gender roles, it would seem that Sprigg is worried about the possibility not only of marriage equality, but even gender equality.
8. “More children would grow up fatherless.”
This section is essentially just a restatement of the previous point, except that it specifically deals with children growing up without fathers. Although Sprigg claims after each assertion that it has been “controlled for other factors,” he is still pitting children born to responsible, married heterosexuals against children born to irresponsible teens, children born to childish adults, unplanned and unwanted children, and children raised in foster care, not just children raised by responsible, committed same-sex couples.
Additionally, his assertions that the children of same-sex couples are more prone to substance abuse, academic struggles, and social problems, ring hollow. For one thing, many children up for adoption are not there by the choice of their biological parents, but rather because they were taken due to their biological parents’ ineptitude. Among the babies who were simply given up for financial reasons are crack babies, babies with learning disabilities, children with trauma, and children with behavioral problems. So, while many children of lesbians are the fruits of artificial insemination, a great many children of same-sex couples are indeed adopted, and of these adopted children, many are taken from the pool of children with some sort of handicap, be it from birth or early life.
Also, consider the dark irony of the allegations that Sprigg is raising. He, who says that the very acceptance of same-sex couples is toxic to society, who thinks that homosexuality is a disease to be purged and ostracized, sneers as he points out that children raised by same-sex couples are subject to greater struggles. Of course they are, in a world in which Sprigg and his ilk do their best to saturate culture with messages calling the parents of these children abominations and deviants.
9. “Birth rates would fall.”
Sprigg points to a correlation between marriage equality and low birth rate, as though that were a bad thing. He himself goes on to acknowledge that societies that embrace contraception are on the road to embracing marriage equality, although he seems to be unhappy about that. Asserting that heterosexual marriage is given cultural prominence because it encourages procreation, Sprigg warns that marriage equality, and the resulting influx of married couples who can’t have children except through the use of adoption or artificial insemination, will discourage people from having children just because.
I would think that we, as a society, in a time of overpopulation, would want to encourage responsibility in regards to birth rate. Surely, it would be better to have children after consideration and preparation, rather than as trophies. To Sprigg, though, I suppose a “quiver full” of children would be preferable to a select few. Toward the end of this section, Sprigg references a demographics report which claims that declining birth rates will undermine the “traditional model of the working young paying for the retired old.” It would seem, then, that Sprigg would have us deny rights to a class of people out of fear that treating them as equals would result in responsible procreation, which he fears because it would undermine an antiquated tradition of needless elder worship.
10. “Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.”
Take a shot, the homophobes have brought up the polygamy argument. Take a few more, because they manage to tack on the usual warnings about pedophilia and incest, too. It’s pretty standard fare, really, and comes off as almost token. Blah, blah, gays, blah, blah, slippery slope, blah, blah, polygamy. The actual argument is fairly shaky, though, as it always has been. Sprigg and his friends labor under the impression that their ideal of marriage, a weird little “Uncanny Valley” version of the 1950s, is the only safe one, and that any other sort of marriage will inherently lead to anarchy.
They argue that if marriage is no longer strictly one man and one woman, then anything goes. This is a rather fallacious argument, though, as the argument is not over whether special rights should be given to same-sex couples, but whether they are entitled to rights that already exist. Two people can already get married, there’s no debate over that. The trouble is that social conservatives tend to want to limit the two people that can get married to only opposite-sex couples. All marriage equality advocates want is for any two consenting adults to be able to marry one another. It would still be a couples’ thing.
While Sprigg uses a generous application of scare quotes when writing about the polyamory “movement” (apparently it’s a movement now, according to Sprigg), poly-people aren’t really any sort of threat, anyway. Even if marriage equality for same-sex couples would lead to polygamy, that’s not a problem, in and of itself. See argument five, in which Sprigg pretty much makes the same argument, that being that people won’t be monogamous if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. What I said there applies here, too: There isn’t a whole lot of call for non-monogamy. Yes, folks like Dan Savage do routinely advocate for open relationships, but there’s a big difference between the relatively common open relationship, in which members of a couple will sometimes sleep with other people, and polygamy, in which one takes on multiple spouses. Polygamy is off with pedophilia and bestiality, in this instance, not because they are in any way morally equivalent (a happy poly-family is well and good, whereas there are no real world ways to harmlessly pull off pedophilia and bestiality), but rather because there just aren’t enough proponents to make it
2 Responses to “GENDER And SEXUALITY: Rebuttal to Peter Sprigg’s “The Top Ten Harms of Same Sex Marriage””