Infuriating Debate

I generally dislike formal debates on hot social issues... it just seems like people blindly adhere to whatever beliefs they started with, bring up the same old arguments and get really offended by everything the other side has to say. Plus, it kind of seems like it doesn't matter most of the time; for example, people have been debating abortion and pro-choice/pro-life for as long as I can remember, and nothing has changed in that time and I doubt anything will in the near future. It's not that I cannot appreciate the significance these issues may have for individuals, I just don't see the point of featuring them so prominently in political debates, especially in election season when there are SOOOOO many other pressing issues that will actually need to be dealt with in the next 4 or 8 years.
Nevertheless, I do enjoy listening to debates on issues that I care about when the people arguing are just speaking their mind and trying to convince their audience that they're right for the sake of the cause.

Today, my school hosted two speakers debating Gay Marriage. Of course, while it is currently a hot social topic, it is actually relevant to every California citizen because it's a proposition on our ballot this fall. I wasn't going there with an open mind ... I can't say I have heard one good argument for why we should ban gay marriage ... but I am always curious as to what the other side will say (and to hear what new arguments are put forth in support of my beliefs). The woman arguing against gay marriage (and thus in favor of the proposition) seemed like a complete wacko. Her main argument was that gay marriage is bad for CA citizens because it will harm children. According to her, allowing gay and lesbian people to marry means sanctioning the upbringing of children by necessarily ripping them away from one or both of their biological parents. Of course, she sees this as devastatingly detrimental to the health of the children* but then somehow tried to distinguish adoption or IVF by heterosexual couples. She also avoided the issue of all the children born to single mothers, deadbeat dads and unstable heterosexual couples, seemingly assuming that all married straight people raise their own biological children in completely loving and safe households.

Neither side really mentioned the fundamental injustice and inequality that restricting marriage to straight people would effect. Since the CA Supreme Court found that preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying was unconstitutional, the proposition essentially re-drafts the Constitution to make this discrimination constitutional. (This might be a good time to say that one of her secondary arguments for why we should ban gay marriage is that the last thing California needs is another protected class, giving them the right to sue over "all kinds of things.")

The guy speaking in favor of gay marriage made a good legal argument I thought... Part of what the Court relied on in making its decision was precedent from cases regarding interracial marriage, where the Court held that people should be free to marry the person whom they choose. At that time, opponents of interracial marriage were attempting to frame the issue definitionally, as opponents of gay marriage are now.

I left the debate completely pissed off that this is still such an issue. If this woman was the best that side can produce to argue why these people should be treated so differently with regard to a fundamental right, then how the hell do so many people agree?! and if there are better arguments in support of her position, why wouldn't they be in the public discourse? I have to conclude that most of this country either doesn't want to think rationally about the issue or they will just continue to adhere blindly to whatever propaganda their religion or community tells them to believe. That is completely contrary to the spirit of democracy, which is infuriating.

*I tend to agree that it probably is good (all other things being equal) for a child to be raised by both a father and a mother in a stable household. However, I think that gay and lesbian couples can make just as good of parents and if it is a detriment to not have both a mother and a father, maybe the child gets a different benefit that kids of straight couples do not. I don't trust the validity of any study that claims as a fact that kids will suffer without the traditional mother-father-child environment... they aren't comparing that to a father-father-child or mother-mother-child environment. Even if a study did compare these families, I don't think it's fair to compare a married heterosexual couple with children to a gay or lesbian couple with children because the gay couple does not enjoy legal sanction in the law or acceptance by much of society.