My argument piece - gay marriage
dcfaithful
Posts: 13,076
I wrote this last year in one of my English classes, and I feel like it's time I shared it here. It's a topic I'm pretty passionate about, and I feel has no reason for not being solved yet.
Let me preface in case this helps you decide to read on or not, but I am an advocate of gay marriage, and this piece supports my stance.
I would like to request that anybody who has negative feelings or comments to please not share. There is no need for hatred, aggression, or derogatory attacks. Debate respectfully please.
"Marriage is illegal. For heterosexual couples, that is obviously incorrect. However, homosexual couples face the ongoing challenge of fighting for their legal unity. The ongoing arguments that are portrayed against gay marriages do not support the ideal purpose of our country’s government. Our government’s purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to promote popular opinion. By denying same sex couples the right to marry it is inevitably failing in its sole mission. Gay couples should undoubtedly have the right to wed. Their desire to marry is of no lesser value as that of a heterosexual couple, and by with-holding marriage from them they are denied the American rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.
In the spirit of remaining tolerant, many people opposed to gay marriage believe that gays should have their own institution of union that would declare their partnerships in a legal matter. However, they don’t want homosexuals to be included in what they see as the traditions of a heterosexual marriage. Proposing such an idea is basically a chameleon appearance of the policy “separate but equal”. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the same policy was declined and justified as being unconstitutional in relations to race. The name of the theory is a redundancy in itself; “separate but equal”. How can separate ever be equal when separate is defined as to set or keep apart? This alternative to traditional marriage is an indirect offense to the homosexual community by reinstating their second-class status in our society. It is a reminder that they are still thought of as incapable and undeserving of being regarded as “married”. (Moore)
Another argument against allowing gays to marry is that it will degrade the already struggling institution of marriage. Marriage is such a sacred tradition of commitment, yet infidelity is a contagion and divorce rates are at a historic high. Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology reports; 45 to 50% of first marriages end in divorce, 60 to 67% for second marriages and a surprising 70 to 73% for third marriages (divorcestatistics.org) Considering same-sex marriages are currently only being performed in 4 states, these statistics are most likely founded from heterosexual marriages. At this point, the fact of the matter is that the “traditions” of marriage are severely over-looked. When competing on a reality television show to “marry a millionaire” this argument of preserving a sacred institution appears to be inane. The “traditions” of marriage have been more than over-looked they’ve been taken advantage of. If we can bend or possibly even break the “traditions” of this sacred institution, how do we justify with-holding it from an entire demographic of our society? (Belge)
A very favorable answer for that question could possibly be this: Because homosexual relations are biologically unnatural, thus they cannot produce a child from their union. After all, having children is often considered part of the “traditions” of marriage. This is an easy road to take; it’s a good point provided it’s based on factual observations and it potentially avoids accusations of bigotry. A great example of this attitude has been expressed by Peter Akinola, Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria:
“I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals — dogs, cows, lions — we don’t hear of such things.”
There are many objections to be made here. First; humans are undoubtedly a part of nature, so if humans engage in homosexual relations, is it unnatural? Secondly, dogs, cows, and lions aren’t entering into a legal state of marriage. Does that mean that marriage is unnatural and should be abolished? But if we’re going to deny homosexuals marriage solely on the fact that they cannot reproduce then we should also outlaw marriages that include postmenopausal women. Sterile, impotent, or aged couples could easily be lumped into this category as well. While their relationships are not unnatural, they’re ability to reproduce is equal to that of homosexual couples. (Cline)
This isn’t the only way that procreation and children have been used against the rights of homosexual couples. Many opposing faces are convinced that a homosexual relationship is far from the ideal healthy environment to raise children. This is an interesting stance, especially when you take into consideration who society does allow to marry and bring children into their marriage. We’ve all heard of the reports of known murderers, felons, rapists, and above all child molesters pursuing their right to marry and procreate. So, if children are the real concern, why is this happening on a day to day basis? The fact of the matter is that what makes the difference is the love of the parents and not the gender. Many gay couples do raise children, adopted and often those that are results of a failed attempt at a heterosexual relationship. There is no proof that homosexuals are any less capable of providing a loving and supportive environment for children to be raised in. In fact, in dissent of the accusations the following excerpt is from Brad Sears and Alan Hirsch’s article in the Los Angeles Times published in 2004 which gives a description of a 2002 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health:
“The committee reviewed scientific literature encompassing three broad sets of studies. The first set assessed the attitudes, behavior and adjustments of lesbian and gay parents and found, according to the AAP report, "more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers." Likewise, the research showed that lesbian mothers scored the same as heterosexual mothers in self-esteem, psychologic adjustment and attitudes toward child rearing…
The studies suggest only one meaningful difference: Children of lesbian parents are "more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics report is the most prestigious of its kind, but it is not the only one. Most reviews of the social science research reach the same conclusion: "The proposition that children suffer when raised by gay parents is without basis. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the only significant difference between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual couples is that the former feel freer to explore occupations and behaviors unhampered by traditional gender roles — a good thing, perhaps.” (Brad Sears and Alan Hirsch)
The evidence favors that what truly matters is the love and nurturing of the parents, and not their sex and expected gender roles. Children of lesbian parents are “more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children whose parents are heterosexual.” Isn’t increased tolerance and fostering something anyone could benefit from? Why is same sex marriage outlawed on claims that they aren’t suitable for the development of a child when it can prove in some cases to be more capable of achieving that ideal status than some heterosexual couples?
Religion is a key factor in many opposing arguments for gay marriage. Our First Amendment stands for freedom of religion, which ultimately gives us the choice of whether or not we want to live our lives under religious guidance. In other words, it gives us freedom from religion. We are granted, if we choose, the right for our lives to not be governed by another’s religious doctrines. Trying to enforce certain beliefs through legality is weakening the separation between church and state and is in disregard of our Bill of Rights. In a society that claims religious freedom, enforcing a religious viewpoint through the justice system is paradoxical to our First Amendment. As said earlier in this argument piece, the purpose of our government is to protect its citizen’s rights, and not a religious opinion or popular morality. If there is any argument against the legalization of same sex marriages, which is a civil rights issue, religion is completely irrelevant to the subject matter and should be absent from the discussion. It is a disappointment that the evidence given based upon the founding qualities of our nation is still being overlooked and that the civil rights of our citizens are not being protected because of their sexual preference.
The liberation of same-sex marriage is without a doubt a strong chapter in the modern day fight of civil rights. The fifteenth amendment was needed to protect a citizen’s race, and former status as a slave against the sabotaging of their voting rights. If it becomes necessary to amend the constitution in order to protect them from being denied marriage in spite of their sexual orientation, I would without question advocate it.
Many people argue that homosexuality is purely a choice, or even to some degree a mental disorder, and has no connection to biology. The American Psychology Association in dissent says “Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology.” As you can see to a homosexual it is a core part of their identity, and they are being denied marital freedom simply by prejudice. There is a belief that homosexuality is nothing but sex and perversion and this is simply a misconception. Gay couples possess values that are parallel to those of straight couples. Of course the issues of infidelity, lying, and even abuse are across the board no matter a couple’s gender. Many gay couples are loving, passionate, faithful, and devoted partners who participate in family life and working to better their communities. They abide to the law, and are a full functioning part of our evolving society.
As a slice of my own personal philosophy, until our government decides to acknowledge and stand up for all of our rights, I cannot believe it is succeeding in what it was originally created to do. In our history, we have abolished slavery, empowered women with civil rights, and virtually eliminated segregation. If we cannot embrace tolerance and allow all of our citizens to marry regardless of their sexual preference, we have a lot of work to do in order to merit being the true defenders of the free world."
It is insanely contradictory to the principles of our country when we continue to allow a pecentage of population to be restricted from committing to each other through marriage if that is what they want. We all have the right to marry whoever we want, none of us have the right to tell each other they can't utilize their rights.
Thanks for reading.
Let me preface in case this helps you decide to read on or not, but I am an advocate of gay marriage, and this piece supports my stance.
I would like to request that anybody who has negative feelings or comments to please not share. There is no need for hatred, aggression, or derogatory attacks. Debate respectfully please.
"Marriage is illegal. For heterosexual couples, that is obviously incorrect. However, homosexual couples face the ongoing challenge of fighting for their legal unity. The ongoing arguments that are portrayed against gay marriages do not support the ideal purpose of our country’s government. Our government’s purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to promote popular opinion. By denying same sex couples the right to marry it is inevitably failing in its sole mission. Gay couples should undoubtedly have the right to wed. Their desire to marry is of no lesser value as that of a heterosexual couple, and by with-holding marriage from them they are denied the American rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.
In the spirit of remaining tolerant, many people opposed to gay marriage believe that gays should have their own institution of union that would declare their partnerships in a legal matter. However, they don’t want homosexuals to be included in what they see as the traditions of a heterosexual marriage. Proposing such an idea is basically a chameleon appearance of the policy “separate but equal”. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the same policy was declined and justified as being unconstitutional in relations to race. The name of the theory is a redundancy in itself; “separate but equal”. How can separate ever be equal when separate is defined as to set or keep apart? This alternative to traditional marriage is an indirect offense to the homosexual community by reinstating their second-class status in our society. It is a reminder that they are still thought of as incapable and undeserving of being regarded as “married”. (Moore)
Another argument against allowing gays to marry is that it will degrade the already struggling institution of marriage. Marriage is such a sacred tradition of commitment, yet infidelity is a contagion and divorce rates are at a historic high. Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology reports; 45 to 50% of first marriages end in divorce, 60 to 67% for second marriages and a surprising 70 to 73% for third marriages (divorcestatistics.org) Considering same-sex marriages are currently only being performed in 4 states, these statistics are most likely founded from heterosexual marriages. At this point, the fact of the matter is that the “traditions” of marriage are severely over-looked. When competing on a reality television show to “marry a millionaire” this argument of preserving a sacred institution appears to be inane. The “traditions” of marriage have been more than over-looked they’ve been taken advantage of. If we can bend or possibly even break the “traditions” of this sacred institution, how do we justify with-holding it from an entire demographic of our society? (Belge)
A very favorable answer for that question could possibly be this: Because homosexual relations are biologically unnatural, thus they cannot produce a child from their union. After all, having children is often considered part of the “traditions” of marriage. This is an easy road to take; it’s a good point provided it’s based on factual observations and it potentially avoids accusations of bigotry. A great example of this attitude has been expressed by Peter Akinola, Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria:
“I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals — dogs, cows, lions — we don’t hear of such things.”
There are many objections to be made here. First; humans are undoubtedly a part of nature, so if humans engage in homosexual relations, is it unnatural? Secondly, dogs, cows, and lions aren’t entering into a legal state of marriage. Does that mean that marriage is unnatural and should be abolished? But if we’re going to deny homosexuals marriage solely on the fact that they cannot reproduce then we should also outlaw marriages that include postmenopausal women. Sterile, impotent, or aged couples could easily be lumped into this category as well. While their relationships are not unnatural, they’re ability to reproduce is equal to that of homosexual couples. (Cline)
This isn’t the only way that procreation and children have been used against the rights of homosexual couples. Many opposing faces are convinced that a homosexual relationship is far from the ideal healthy environment to raise children. This is an interesting stance, especially when you take into consideration who society does allow to marry and bring children into their marriage. We’ve all heard of the reports of known murderers, felons, rapists, and above all child molesters pursuing their right to marry and procreate. So, if children are the real concern, why is this happening on a day to day basis? The fact of the matter is that what makes the difference is the love of the parents and not the gender. Many gay couples do raise children, adopted and often those that are results of a failed attempt at a heterosexual relationship. There is no proof that homosexuals are any less capable of providing a loving and supportive environment for children to be raised in. In fact, in dissent of the accusations the following excerpt is from Brad Sears and Alan Hirsch’s article in the Los Angeles Times published in 2004 which gives a description of a 2002 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health:
“The committee reviewed scientific literature encompassing three broad sets of studies. The first set assessed the attitudes, behavior and adjustments of lesbian and gay parents and found, according to the AAP report, "more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers." Likewise, the research showed that lesbian mothers scored the same as heterosexual mothers in self-esteem, psychologic adjustment and attitudes toward child rearing…
The studies suggest only one meaningful difference: Children of lesbian parents are "more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics report is the most prestigious of its kind, but it is not the only one. Most reviews of the social science research reach the same conclusion: "The proposition that children suffer when raised by gay parents is without basis. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the only significant difference between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual couples is that the former feel freer to explore occupations and behaviors unhampered by traditional gender roles — a good thing, perhaps.” (Brad Sears and Alan Hirsch)
The evidence favors that what truly matters is the love and nurturing of the parents, and not their sex and expected gender roles. Children of lesbian parents are “more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children whose parents are heterosexual.” Isn’t increased tolerance and fostering something anyone could benefit from? Why is same sex marriage outlawed on claims that they aren’t suitable for the development of a child when it can prove in some cases to be more capable of achieving that ideal status than some heterosexual couples?
Religion is a key factor in many opposing arguments for gay marriage. Our First Amendment stands for freedom of religion, which ultimately gives us the choice of whether or not we want to live our lives under religious guidance. In other words, it gives us freedom from religion. We are granted, if we choose, the right for our lives to not be governed by another’s religious doctrines. Trying to enforce certain beliefs through legality is weakening the separation between church and state and is in disregard of our Bill of Rights. In a society that claims religious freedom, enforcing a religious viewpoint through the justice system is paradoxical to our First Amendment. As said earlier in this argument piece, the purpose of our government is to protect its citizen’s rights, and not a religious opinion or popular morality. If there is any argument against the legalization of same sex marriages, which is a civil rights issue, religion is completely irrelevant to the subject matter and should be absent from the discussion. It is a disappointment that the evidence given based upon the founding qualities of our nation is still being overlooked and that the civil rights of our citizens are not being protected because of their sexual preference.
The liberation of same-sex marriage is without a doubt a strong chapter in the modern day fight of civil rights. The fifteenth amendment was needed to protect a citizen’s race, and former status as a slave against the sabotaging of their voting rights. If it becomes necessary to amend the constitution in order to protect them from being denied marriage in spite of their sexual orientation, I would without question advocate it.
Many people argue that homosexuality is purely a choice, or even to some degree a mental disorder, and has no connection to biology. The American Psychology Association in dissent says “Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology.” As you can see to a homosexual it is a core part of their identity, and they are being denied marital freedom simply by prejudice. There is a belief that homosexuality is nothing but sex and perversion and this is simply a misconception. Gay couples possess values that are parallel to those of straight couples. Of course the issues of infidelity, lying, and even abuse are across the board no matter a couple’s gender. Many gay couples are loving, passionate, faithful, and devoted partners who participate in family life and working to better their communities. They abide to the law, and are a full functioning part of our evolving society.
As a slice of my own personal philosophy, until our government decides to acknowledge and stand up for all of our rights, I cannot believe it is succeeding in what it was originally created to do. In our history, we have abolished slavery, empowered women with civil rights, and virtually eliminated segregation. If we cannot embrace tolerance and allow all of our citizens to marry regardless of their sexual preference, we have a lot of work to do in order to merit being the true defenders of the free world."
It is insanely contradictory to the principles of our country when we continue to allow a pecentage of population to be restricted from committing to each other through marriage if that is what they want. We all have the right to marry whoever we want, none of us have the right to tell each other they can't utilize their rights.
Thanks for reading.
7/2/06 - Denver, CO
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The only thing i have to add to this is, it seems inevitable that it will some day be legal in every state as it should be in my opinion, i cant immagine why people spend so much of there energy trying to stop it. It doesn't affect them.
Seeing people take time out of there lives to protest this, to vote against it, hurts my brain.
the nay sayers will claim that gay union will deteriorate the institution of marriage
as you said hetero couples average a 50% success rate
then there's
the bachelor
the bachelorette
joe millionaire
who wants to marry a millionaire
who wants to marry a large person
flava of love
l heart new york 1, 2, and so on
rock of love
daisy of love
for the love of ray jay
for the record this list is composed from commercials i have seen for these shows and not my actual viewing of same
so there must be other tales of gutter love on cable channels i don't watch
afw
good piece
and
peace
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
Binaural, it hurts my brain too...badly.
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
I agree, and really hope so too!
Good stuff DC.
If you want to know who nature's real crazies are, look no further than the dolphins - a young male dolphin's first sexual experience is usually with his mother. She teaches him about the birds and the bees in a way that only humans shopping for certain literature on Amazon would find acceptable...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Exactly. Homosexuality is readily obvious in nature.
When I was researching both sides of this argument, I was in disbelief of some of the things people will actually buy into to oppose this. To me it is cut and dry, and there really is no good reason why it shouldn't be legal.
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
I saw a stat one time that over 50% of marriages in our country are secular- a JP, not a church. To me, that really shows that a whole lot of us don't think it's all that sacred. Useful, precious, hallowed, maybe, but not sacred.
I say live and let live.
I've always been amazed at the same thing. A large group that preach love, and acceptance and all that shit...yet, because boys like boys and girls like girls, there is a big problem. God loves all his children...except those that have an abnormal sexual preference. They're sinners. :roll:
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
Without going into a rant, I think marriage these days is bordering becoming a joke. It doesn't help my opinion when I mention to people I've been with my girlfriend for nearly 4 years and what usually follows is this:
"Oh wow, so when are you going to get married?"
"When the time is right. We're pretty comfortable where we're at, and we don't necessarily feel that we need the title to make our relationship important."
"But what about the tax benefits?"
Really? Is that the first thing that the majority of people think of when considering marriage? Tax benefits? To me that is incredibly...I don't know, not the fucking point?
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
My husband and I dated for 14 years before we got married. :shock: We finally succumbed to social pressures and tied the knot. Don't know that it really changed anything but my last name. Imagine how many years I had to fight off their assults. Now imagine their faces when I tell them I CHOOSE to not have children.
Glad we do have at least have the option for homosexuals to have a legal partnership tough.
You can't just hope all of the states pass laws allowing homosexual marriage, that's a bit of a long shot.
I don't think the issue is exactly black and white when it comes to an actual solution. It's nice to write an essay stating the reasons it should be legal, but that lacks applicability.
Marriage should be a left up to the state to regulate and I don't want any sort of federal legislation dictating to the states how to marry people(i.e. the Federal Marriage Act).
But let's just say you wanted a federal law passed.
So what would you do? Do you not listen to your constituents if you are Senator and pass it through anyway? Isn't part of your job as a Senator to represent the views of his/her district? I just don't see a real pretty way of making it legal in all 50 states. The majority of American's aren't in favor of same-sex marriage. I'm not saying they're right, but it's the truth.
I think another thing that irked me a bit about your essays was this "we have the right to marry whoever we want".
That right doesn't exist. It might sound nice ideologically, but right now, I only have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. And when I read a persuasive paper that has a assumption like that, I tend to find it more emotional than persuasive.
I think I would also have left out the 1st amendment bit. I am certainly allowed to vote according to my religious principles and that is not in violation of your 1st amendment rights. In fact, when the Bill of Rights was passed, there were several state sponsored churches. The initial purpose of the bill of rights was to limit what the federal government can do, not the state government... which is, as I mentioned earlier, mostly in charge of marriage. Now that has changed, through some rather egregious supreme court rulings, but that wasn't it's initial intention. If you are going to be able to convince someone, I'm not sure telling them to ignore their religion is the best approach, I feel as if it would just alienate them even more.
And finally, as I just mentioned, the overall feel of the paper has a bit of a 'preaching to the choir' feel. I'm not sure it would convince anyone to change sides. It was a bit to emotional and argumentative. I would have toned down the attack on the "sacred tradition of marriage"... though all of your statistics are true, it's not necessary. And as I mentioned, I didn't like the religion aspect. That is wayyyyy to personal to some people and if you goal is to increase awareness, I would have stayed far away from that.
There was also a quote-
“more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children whose parents are heterosexual.”
It wasn't referenced, and I was really curious to see who you were referring to. It seems like a really strong argument but wasn't quite developed enough.
I'm being extremely picky about those things and they aren't a huge deal. The essay was extremely well written so I had to reread it a few times to find some inconsistencies. Please don't take what I've said as negative, but I was very much impressed with the clarity and coherence of the essay. It was easy to read and followed a pretty good path that wasn't too sporadic.
To be honest, I hadn't given much thought as to what I would do if I was in a political position, hypothetically. Overall though, I do believe that I would press for it being legal because I feel that morally it's the right choice to be made. I agree that there won't be an easy and pretty way to remedy this. You say that the majority of American's aren't in favor of it, and I too believe you are right on this, but as I pointed out I also feel that our federal government's job isn't to protect the popular opinion, but the population's rights...which leads you to say that currently we don't have the right of marrying whoever we want, which I think in an nutshell is my entire point. We don't have that right, and the fact that we don't have it is wrong, I believe our government is failing in it's job to protect our rights. I cannot be convinced that the government should tell us that we can only marry someone of the opposite sex based simply on what? That the general public is uncomfortable with it?
In the event that this wasn't outlawed, it wouldn't be forcing heterosexual people to experience it. It would be promoting equality for everyone of all sexual orientations. It is weak argument to withhold marriage based solely on the fact that too many people feel it's "wrong". So I ask to those people, what is so wrong about homosexuality?
Nothing. There is nothing wrong with it. Just like there is nothing wrong with a white and a black man drinking from the same water fountain, or sharing the same bench on a bus, or a woman voting on the same thing as a man. So why should this issue be treated differently. Sure, we've decided that it is morally wrong to minimalize people's status, and ability based upon their skin color...but why is it okay to do that because of their sexual orientation? In comparison, saying that heterosexuality is normal would be relative to saying being white, or male is normal...which obviously didn't fly.
My stance on the sacred tradition of marriage I think does have some validity to it. If it's not necessary for me to use it as a defense, then it's not necessary to use it as a way to prohibit a clique from enjoying the same opportunities that others do simply because they're homosexual. Marriage is arbitrary anyways. It's a choice that we all have, and it is not mandated that we enter wedlock with someone. How can anybody support the enforcement of being able to only marry to opposite gender? It has no significance.
I also feel that my message was not to ignore your religion. Perhaps I was too aggressive? Maybe, but I will continue to stand against religion playing a part in this argument as it is irrelevant. The point I was making is that everyone is free to believe what they want to believe, but it is absurd to make others suffer because your belief has such a stronghold on a popular opinion which may or may not drive the law. Maybe that is too emotional. But I'm willing to bet that not allowing homosexual couples that want to marry to marry is quite emotional as well. Just because religion can be a touchy subject shouldn't stop it's irrelevant nature in this discussion from having light shined on it.
With all that being said, the piece I wrote is simply an opinion piece, and I don't plan on it changing the world's outlook on the issue. I simply hope that it will help open people's eyes to the inconsistencies in the arguments against allowing homosexual marriage.
Thank you for your compliments on the strength of my piece though, and also for reading and raising these questions.
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
It's not legal because there's no clever rhyme to combat "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE!"
Yeah, the reasons against it are ridiculous. I think every heterosexual person who opposes gay marriage on the grounds that it will ruin the sanctity of marriage should also have to state how many times they've been divorced. When you're onto your fourth marriage, like Rush Limbaugh is, it's hard to take you seriously when you say you think letting homosexuals marry will ruin the institution.
Uh yeah, at that point it doesn't really mean too much.
6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2