The gay marriage debate is in full swing once again. There are several myths and misconceptions surrounding this debate, and a few of them will be tackled here. As always, it's important to hold this discussion in respect and love. Chick-Fil-A has been attacked from all sides concerning its support of traditional marriage. I stand with Chick-Fil-A in complete and total support, and several of the myths below have been applied against Chick-Fil-A, and wholly without merit. I call for intellectually honest dialogue on this subject between Christians and homosexuals.
Myth #1: If one is against gay marriage, then he hates/fears homosexuals/homosexuality (i.e., is a homophobe).
The fact is I have never seen an argument even attempted that shows this is true of most (much less all) traditional marriage advocates. This really only serves as a piece of rhetoric designed to avoid debate or discussion of the issue. The idea is that if someone is simply asserting a position because he hates people to whom it applies, we should find such morally reprehensible.
The only argument I can think of is to say that if someone makes a moral judgment concerning some act or behavior that she must hate or fear that person. But in that case, most gay marriage advocates will readily claim such a position is morally bad, which is itself a moral judgment. Would it then follow that these people hate or fear the homophobes? This can be avoided if one asserts there are no moral values. But even if this is avoided, one is still faced with the challenge: why should we think the above claim is true? I see no reason to think it is. Until this challenge is met sufficiently, no one should perpetuate (1).
Myth #2: Advocates of traditional marriage wish to outlaw or limit the rights of homosexual behavior.
Occasionally, I will read an impassioned comment, status, or article defending the rights of homosexuals to live their lives how they see fit. How dare Christians, say these, try to take away the civil rights of other Americans who are minding their own business? Something should be made abundantly clear: the debate is emphatically not about homosexual behavior (or their rights to live the lives they choose). Virtually no one is saying homosexuality should be outlawed. In any case, the strong majority simply wishes to retain the definition of the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Myth #3: To reject homosexual behavior is to reject homosexual persons.
You can't separate "being gay" from who I am. I have often heard this statement made. The fact is that who a person is does not simply come from what they do. That is to say, a homosexual person is more than just homosexual behavior. My wife can love me greatly even if I do some action that she finds to be wrong, annoying, or otherwise offensive. Similarly, one can have great love and respect for a person while morally disagreeing with his behavior.
Myth #4: Advocates of traditional marriage do not want equality for homosexuals.
This myth has the basic argument that everyone should be equal. This line of argumentation is notoriously ambiguous. After all, does this mean that everyone should be treated exactly the same in all situations? Should it mean that everyone has equal opportunity? If the former, why think so? Should we require everyone to pay business income taxes, even if they do not own a business? If not, then not every person in every situation should receive the same treatment. If the latter, then one can easily point out everyone does have equal opportunity for marriage: no one is stopping homosexuals from marrying in the traditional sense—one man, one woman. Most traditional marriage advocates have no problem with civil unions (for things such as tax benefits), and I personally do not have a problem with people going through their own ceremonies and calling it whatever they want; just don't expect it to be recognized by society as a legitimate marriage.
The issue really boils down to two things: first, is marriage fundamentally between a man and a woman? If so, then any other arrangement, whatever it might be, is simply not marriage. Second, if marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, whatever the role of government, it should not actively promote the contrary.
 It's worth noting that, in and of itself, this is not a good reason to reject the truth of some position. Simply because someone is acting immorally it would not follow necessarily that the position being asserted is itself incorrect.
All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.