How do you make the case for same sex marriage?

[Tino]

Everyone knows I'm a student, right? If you didn't know before, you know now.

Well, I'm taking a speech class and part of that is that I'm going to have to make a persuasive speech. So, I'm going to make a speech for something I already believe in: same sex marriage.

Thing is, from my perspective, same sex marriage is a no brainer. When you're queer, it's kinda hard to question your own rights. However, if I'm going to make an effective, persuasive speech, I would need to address the concerns of people who aren't already queer who are specifically homophobic.

Any suggestions on what those concerns are and how to address them?

TaraJo,

From your post, and the responses so far, it sounds like someone would have to be a complete idiot to see any issues with gay marriage. So into the breach I go, firmly grabbing the third-rail of atheist politics, in a sincere effort to be of help with your speech.

First, my own view is that gays should be able to get "married." And most Americans, 63%, support same-sex unions. The question I have, and that I think your speech could address, is the best way to achieve that outcome.

I think you need to begin with a healthy respect for the institution of marriage. I won't go into the reasons why but check google for secular sources, such as http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...f-marriage. I have interacted with one gay-marriage proponent who seemed to have near contempt for marriage, saying "what's the big deal, the divorce rate is 50% anyway." (FYI, see this article for info on why the first-time divorce rate today is more like 30% http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myt...rce/all/1/). My view is either respect the institution or don't pursue it.

If you accept the importance of the institution, then recognize that when it changes, it needs to be done with care and forethought. Therefore I think the important question is what is the best way to change marriage to make it available to gays? There are at least 3 options on the table:

1. Implement same-sex civil unions and create legislation requiring that civil unions be given the same legal status as the legal status given to marriage.

2. Change "marriage" today to permit same-sex marriages.

3. Create a new institution for gay marriage, which I will call "garriage", and create legislation requiring that garriages be given the same legal status as the legal status given to marriage.

Now for whatever reason the support for option 2 is 38% vs. 63% who support the more general idea of same-sex civil unions. And for whatever reason, option 2 is the approach that they gay community is pursuing, which will require changing the most minds.

I think the smarter strategies are 1 and 3. They create separation from the institution of marriage, which addresses every religious or institutional-harm objection that could be raised about attempting to change marriage. The objection I have been given to options 1 and 3 is based on the "separate but equal" concept that was used to justify racial segregation in the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling in the US. I don't find this argument to be compelling. Plessy vs. Ferguson concerned facilities, such as schools, which are intrinsically different if separate. But separateness, when applied to an idea such as a legal status, doesn't come with a built-in differentness. And the difference quality is already commonly addressed today in that from a legal perspective, marriages with a religious endorsement are treated no differently than those with no religious endorsement.

Anyway, that's my input. I'll be overjoyed if it is helpful to you. And if it's too late to be of use, at least I've got it off my chest.