A Feminist Case Against Gay Marriage

Published February 10, 2012 by blacknright
Rainbow flag. Symbol of gay pride.

Image via Wikipedia

Though I do not purport to be a feminist, in fact, I abhor the very idea, that doesn’t mean that I am incapable of seeing something from the other person’s perspective. Somehow the gay movement has gotten itself aligned with the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Rights movement to the detriment of both. While most feminists are devoutly pro-gay, that doesn’t mean that all feminists are. Since the pro-gay feminists have their voice already in the fray, I will be playing Devil‘s Advocate for feminists who oppose gay marriage.

A feminist worth their salt would reject gay marriage as an assault on women. I can see the people rolling in the aisles already, such an assertion is lunancy. However, the proponents of gay marriage want marriage to be a “basic human right.” By making it a right,  you are disregarding a very important aspect of marriage-the ability to reject a marriage partner based on your own free will. A right cannot be rejected simply because you don’t want to adhere to it. For instance, I cannot be denied the right to vote based on my skin color, no matter what you may or may not think of my skin color. My right to vote is not conditional on your opinion of me. However, you do have the “right” to not to marry me based on my skin color, or my weight or that you simply do not like me. Those are valid reasons not to marry me. Whether or not they are discriminatory is irrelevant, marriage is the joining of two people (male and female)  who have made a commitment to one another of their own free will to be wed and to raise a family. To force someone to marry another person is indeed a form of slavery.

Marriage DayNext, if marriage does become a right. It will be a right for men,not women. Historically, whenever marriages have been perceived as a right, it was the men who were able to choose their bride and the women pretty much had to go along for the ride. Women’s rights will be greatly affected should marriage become a right once more. Poor women would be forced into marriage in order to gain some financial security. Even wealthy women would be told whom to marry as marriage once again became nothing more than a contract between two wealthy families. Any control over her life would be lost. She would once again become the property of her father, her husband or some other significant male but not herself.

Third, marriage is already an equal partnership and puts women on par with men. Since a man can only marry a woman, she becomes essential to the institution of marriage. Should gay marriage take hold, she would lose the one area of equal status she has always had-that of being a wife. Wives have always had a higher degree of societal status and a larger degree of respect. With the onslaught of women leaving the home and going into the workforce wives have lost that automatic rise in status. Now what a woman does job-wise is how she achieves any sort recognition within society. Which is fine if you are a CEO of Ebay or run some Fortune 500 company but the maid at the Hilton is not significant at all, not even as a wife and/or mother. We have completely undervalued women and torn them from their most important role-that of wife and mother.

Lastly, there are more gay men[about 2.4% of the population] then

English: This protester was on his own and let...

there are lesbians [about 1.2% of the population]. That means gay men will receive far more of the benefits of marriage then women. It also says once and for all that women are irrelevant and have no place inside marriage! It will make the marriage about sex and not procreation and raising children. By defining marriage in such a putrid fashion, we lower our standards and women will once again become sex objects. Vessels of lust and nothing more. By degrading the mother of the species we will be putting our children in danger. For we will undervalue anything that comes from the female-most importantly children. Children have already been cast as the enemy of the women through the pro-abortion movement. We have already turned men against women and tried to completely dismantle the human family. And we see the moral depravity that has resulted from our social engineering.

In closing, even though women will be the ones most adversely affected by gay marriage, their voices are not being heard. It is not about equality because marriage as it currently is known is the most egalitarian institution we have. To tear that asunder would do a disservice to all women and children. If two men want commit sodomy let them do so without the approval of the state. No one is stopping them but marriage needs to be maintained for a healthy society to continue to function. Any feminist should be angry that 2.4 percent of men are being favored over 98.8 percent of women! Is this a fair exchange…is this justice…is this equality? I think not!

10 comments on “A Feminist Case Against Gay Marriage

  • There are few Feminists in the US speaking out against the Gay Rights Movement because Men dominate nearly every facet of American life. Those of us well-versed in Queer Theory are never given an opportunity to express obvious concerns about gender ratios. As you noted, there are more Gay Men than Lesbians. In addition, Men are much more likely to experiment with Gay sex, and Gay Men are much less likely than Lesbians to return to “the opposite sex.” The greater power of Men over Women is at the very heart of the Feminist struggle, and Gay Marriage may make a bad situation worse. But all common sense has gone out the window. Who would care if Spinsters decided to hook up with each other? Gay sex is taboo precisely because in general, Men are fewer in number, more likely to sleep around, less likely to commit fully to child rearing, and make more money. It is for painfully obvious reasons that we are concerned about Men hooking up with Men — particularly handsome, well-educated, and/or well-to-do Men!

  • This post misunderstands about everything it writes on.

    For example if it is a right to wear pants it does not mean people will be forced into wearing pants. It is a right to drive does not mean people who don’t want to drive will be made to. Hence the right to marry doesn’t equal forced marriages.

    If you are going to suggest there are feminist arguments against gay marriage in particular then surely you could link to feminists making them – rather than saying you find feminists abhorrent and then stealing their voice.

  • Wearing pants is not the same as marriage first and foremost, You need to compare apples to apples. Not apples to nonsense. You only have to look at marriage from a historical point of view to see that during the Victorian age that women had very little in the say of who they married, both poor and rich. This is a well established fact. Not conjecture or hearsay or some simple minded argument such as what you have made.

    A right is a claim against a person or property of another that is enforceable in a court of law. Therefore if you have a right to wear pants you can sue your school or job that does not allow you to wear pants because you have claim against another person and you can receive a remedy in a court of law to resolve it. There have been plenty of lawsuits to that effect. I do not have a claim on another person to marry me and I cannot go to a court and force that person to marry me. For instance, I have a good friend who lives in New York who isn’t married and is male and therefore qualifies as being someone I could wed. However, I cannot go to the court and say, “I have asked Mr. New York to marry me on several occasions and he has rejected my offer. As a woman, I have a right to marry and he cannot impede my right therefore I want you to force him to marry me.” No court in its right mind would even consider such a lawsuit. Therefore, there is no right to marry. However, if we do make marriage a “right” then it will become enforceable in a court of law. At that point, Mr. New York could decide he has changed his mind, I am going to be his wife regardless if I want to be or not and could get the court to force the marriage. That is what rights do, people!

    Will people be forced into marriages? Yes, they will. It is going to happen whether you want to admit it or not. Next, still using your pants example, people are forced to wear certain clothes all the time, when they go to school they may have to wear uniforms. If you are cop, working at McDonald’s or a plumber you are also required to wear the company uniform. Should you not comply, you can get suspended (school) or fired (job). Even business men and women have their own “uniform.” You cannot go into your job wearing curlers, sweats and a stained t-shirt. Since most jobs have in their application the right to fire “at will” they can fire you for any reason and that also includes not dressing appropriately. So your right to wear pants does not mean you have the right to wear them wherever you want. However, if you are wearing appropriate business pants (slacks) and are fired because they said you dressed inappropriately, you can take them to court and claim you were fired unfairly and seek restitution and restoration of your job.

    Going further on your pants example, you may have a right to wear pants but prefer dresses but your company does not want you to wear a dress but forces you to wear pants. Therefore, your right to wear (or not wear) pants is being forced on you. You can decide wearing dresses is more important and look for another or get the pants in order to get the job. Either way your right not to wear pants suddenly is immaterlal and is enforceable because if you take them to court, they can simply say this is their rule for all their employees and that you are not being unfairly discriminated against and truthfully you are probably not going to win. You will either be forced to wear the pants or get another job.

    In the future you may want to have more logical arguments and not pick a fight with a UCLA Political Science major. Especially since for the next ten weeks I will specifically be studying “Rights.” Just saying.

  • Gay rights is not a feminist issue and gay marriage does not infringe women’s rights. Find something real to complain about, that actually infringes against women, for example reproductive rights or the Taliban

  • Actually I do agree with you in part KJ Watts, gay marriage is, by and large, not a feminist issue, which is but why I don’t understand why so many feminists back it. However, being that they do I wanted to take a stab at the feminist case against it. As for reproductive rights, give me a break. All feminists want is the right to kill their children at will. I will never back that.

  • This article is missing the point completely. I don’t care if you’re a UCLA Political Science major, it doesn’t change the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You are responding to points that people are not making, this opinion piece is the Gilda Radner of arguments against gay marriage. No, I take that back. At least Gilda Radner admits she’s wrong in her skits, you apparently don’t.

    1) “By making it a right, you are disregarding a very important aspect of marriage-the ability to reject a marriage partner based on your own free will. ”

    Except that in none of the court cases have any gay rights activists attempted to do this. Nobody is trying to make it so that you can say “no” to marriage. The use of the term “right” in this context only refers to the ability to enter into the contract. Nobody is attempting to argue that someone shouldn’t be able to say no. Even if one were to concede that that’s what “rights” are (which they’re not), that’s not what gay marriage activists have even been fighting for.

    And yes, feminists have attempted to make a case against gay marriage. This one is an embarassing one, though.

    “Next, if marriage does become a right. It will be a right for men,not women. Historically, whenever marriages have been perceived as a right, it was the men who were able to choose their bride and the women pretty much had to go along for the ride. ”

    Arranged marriages are illegal in the United States, so this is a fallacy, and once again, not what anyone means when they say that something is a “right”. Maybe your intention was to argue semantics, but if that’s all you are doing, you’re not providing a case against gay marriage.

    “Third, marriage is already an equal partnership and puts women on par with men. Since a man can only marry a woman, she becomes essential to the institution of marriage. Should gay marriage take hold, she would lose the one area of equal status she has always had-that of being a wife. Wives have always had a higher degree of societal status and a larger degree of respect. ”

    Oh come on, do you really think this is feminism? That a woman has to become a wife in order to gain respect? And do you really think that women being housewives hasn’t put them at the mercy of their husband, since it would often be expected that the husband be the breadwinner?

    “We have completely undervalued women and torn them from their most important role-that of wife and mother.”

    Yes, a woman would not have a role – in a gay marriage. I don’t see why this is an issue. I’m pretty sure there are plenty of women out there who would like to be valued for things other than their fertility, so this is just a stupid argument.

    “Lastly, there are more gay men[about 2.4% of the population] then there are lesbians [about 1.2% of the population]. That means gay men will receive far more of the benefits of marriage then women. It also says once and for all that women are irrelevant and have no place inside marriage! “‘

    First of all, any figures on what percentage of the population is gay is never going to be accurate. There’s still a lot of pressure on people not only to stay in the closet, but to deny their sexual attractions and identify as straight. Second of all, this argument is a non-sequitur. No, it doesn’t mean that gay men will receive more benefits of marriage then women. It means that there will be more gay men that will receive benefits of marriage then women.

    Second of all, it doesn’t say women are irrelevant and have no place inside marriage. This is a non-sequitur. Women would be irrelevant to a marriage between gay men. Just as Men would be irrelevant to a marriage between lesbians. Why is that such a big issue? If your figures on gay men are lesbians are true, that’s just a small percentage of the population not needing the opposite sex for romantic reasons. Is that really such a bad thing? And do you really think the idea that men should only see value in women via their sexuality is a good thing to advocate?

    Your argument against gay marriage is certainly unique. Uniquely stupid. I swear, your entire argument was like listening to a Gilda Radner skit.

    “It will make the marriage about sex and not procreation and raising children. ”

    Actually, no it won’t. First of all, me being gay is not just about sex. I did chose my partner based on my ability to be intimate with him, but I love my boyfriend. We’ve been in a loving relationship for 6 years, and it’s not just about sex. We haven’t even HAD sex yet! Second of all, we want to get married because we would like to be able to visit each other in the hospital should one of us get sick. We would like to have medical right of attorney for our partners. When people plan to stay together for life, medical right of attorney is what we would need.

    “”If two men want commit sodomy let them do so without the approval of the state. No one is stopping them but marriage needs to be maintained for a healthy society to continue to function.”

    And marriage will still exist, regardless of whether or not same sex couples get married.

    “Any feminist should be angry that 2.4 percent of men are being favored over 98.8 percent of women! Is this a fair exchange…is this justice…is this equality? I think not”

    This assumes that if I married my boyfriend, I would somehow be hurting women. That has yet to be established. So yes, that is equality.

  • Marriage, only being validated through the eyes of the government, is already wrong. Nobody, man or woman, gay or straight, should have power over someone else’s choice of who and how they connect with someone else in a commitment. Only pure force of will and desire to create a relationship (or not) should be considered. If you want to have a certain type of life or relationship you should be free to pursue that of your own accord, nothing more nothing less. If you choose to partner with someone stronger then yourself, don’t then choose to call upon a government or external entity (government) to sunder that person. That only leads to the corruption that we see now, a government run amuck and out of control (outlaw hoodies…really?) I love to make people jump when I start a conversation by telling them “I don’t believe in legalizing gay marriage” what!? what!? then going on to explain that I don’t believe in the governments power over wither or not 2 gay people can be together I.E legalized. That usually brings a aaahhh ok and a little laugh….

  • so you think any coupling should be validated within the eyes of society or at the very least not viewed as “wrong.” So if I decided that I wanted to be with a 5 year boy (and can I just say “Oh my goodness, that is beyond disgusting!”) that would be okay with you as long as I was able to get the 5 year old to consent and the government should have no say in the matter. You see, this is where the your logic gets you. Because the minute we say “Fine, gay marriage is no big deal.” the liberals want something even more heinous and disgusting, like pedophilia. You cannot change the whole structure of marriage and think there will be no fallout. People will often try to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage but the two are not remotely the same. The structure of marriage was not being threatened, it was still one man (of any color) marrying one woman (of any color.) As I am a prime example of, Black and White couples can still procreate which will always be the main reason for marriage. Those who wish not to procreate, do not need the protection of marriage and can merely cohabit together, if they so desire. Marriage is for those who wish to build a family. You may ask what about adoption or artificial insemination? Don’t gays adopt and don’t lesbians have children through artificial insemination. Yes, those things occur but you don’t change a whole institution to accommodate the exceptions. The truth is the majority of heterosexual marriages will at one point have children involved in their marriage and only a sliver of gay men even WANT children, so to try to say that the majority of the gay men who are only 2.4 percent of the population are going to be discriminated against in terms of adoption or marriage is completely false. Your whole argument is based on emotionalism and has no substantial facts.

  • And marriage will still exist, regardless of whether or not same sex couples get married.

    No it will not because it will have been redefined to fit you and your agenda. You can’t redefine something and then say it will still exist in its original form. If that is the case than why do we no longer use the word gay to mean happy? The homosexual community took that word and now its original meaning is obsolete. If in the 20’s I said “That’s so gay.” it would have been a compliment, today it is a slur. So please don’t insult my intelligence by saying by redefining what marriage is it will still exist. In fact, in California I can’t even call the man I marry my husband on the marriage certificate. He is either Partner A or Partner B. So please tell me again how marriage will continue to exist if we cannot even use the names, husband and wife?

    Next, don’t give me that lame excuse about visiting each other in the hospital. I have spent the last two years in and out of hospitals due to my heart condition. The hospital personnel have never turned away any of my visitors even those who weren’t family. Heck, when I had cancer at 22, I had so many people in my room, it looked like House Party and not all of them were my relatives. They even let my unmarried boyfriend stay overnight and fed him, gave him a cot. Never once did our martial status come up. So don’t feed me that lie, I know better.

    A Gilda Radner skit? Thanks for the compliment, she was one of the few talented SNL people that show has ever had. But here is the rub, you are just as determined to not admit that you are wrong as you are accusing me of being. I love hypocrisy!

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 223 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: