I support gay marriage because I support family value. Marriage, as an official label, allows a couple the legal, financial, social and psychological security they need in order to form a stable, long-term relationship.
Refusing to grant gay couples the right to marry does not prevent them from being gay or having relationships with people of the same sex, it merely introduces an element of instability into those relationships that is unhealthy for both the people in them and the society around them.
It is often argued that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and gay couples can not biologically do so. This is an insult to the thousands of married heterosexual couples who either choose to be childless or are unable to have children. It insults couples who are biologically able to reproduce but choose instead to adopt, (or not to have children at all) since they have chosen to negate the purpose of marriage (biological reproduction.) It insults couples who are biologically unable to have children, even if they choose to adopt, since according to this logic, those couples are ineligible for marriage. After all, gay couples can adopt as well, and in this they are no different from heterosexual biologically barren couples.
Furthermore, bible-toting anti-gay rights activists must ask themselves whether the marriages of the matriarchs in the Old Testament, all of whom (with the exception of Leah) were barren until God performed a miracle, were invalid up to that point. At the time these couples got married, they clearly were biologically unable to reproduce, not meeting the marriage criteria set up by today’s activists. If one argues God did a miracle to validate the marriage, since God’s miracles can transcend nature, couldn’t He make a man or woman pregnant from gay intercourse – especially if He made a woman, the Virgin Mary, pregnant from no intercourse? (This is leaving aside the separation of Church and State issue, which mandates that religious concerns should not factor into the gay marriage issue at all.)
It has also been argued that marriage is about a true love that homosexuality can not encompass, and that homosexual relationships tend to be more unstable than heterosexual ones. Marriage however, has traditionally been about regulating the merger of properties than about love; for most of Western history, a woman could be forced by her parents into a loveless marriage, which was more about financial stability then about love. There is no way to measure the love in relationship; the surest way to ensure not marriage not based on true love would be to abolish marriage altogether. In terms of the stability element: This is a ludicrous claim, especially since 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. There is no evidence to support this claim, and even if there were, it would be chicken or egg situation: Are these relationships less stable and therefore not good candidates for marriage, or are they less stable precisely because they are not allowed the stability of marriage?
It seems that many anti-gay marriage activists see homosexuality as a choice, an urge to be controlled. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is biologically determined and not a choice. Who would choose to be attracted to a group of people if being attracted to those people makes them social outcasts? It is true that even biological urges can be controlled: The Catholic clergy (sex scandals aside) have done this for ages. But there is a difference between making a conscious choice to set aside one’s urges in favor of one’s beliefs and wanting to fulfill those urges but not being allowed to do so by society. In this first case, one overcomes sexuality in order to pursue a different kind of fulfillment. In the second scenario, one is unable to find fulfillment in life because of their sexuality. This second scenario can lead to intense psychological strain, weakening many individuals in our society. This weakness is detrimental to us all, since our society is the sum of the individuals who comprise it. This applies especially in the case of a democracy, where individuals voting in booths decide who our government will be, and what it will stand for.
Furthermore, even if being gay were a both a choice and immoral, it is important to recognize that preventing gay marriages does not stop people from engaging in homosexual activity.
A New York Times op-ed once posed this question to people who want homosexuals to overcome their tendencies and live straight lives: Would you want to marry, or would you want your child to marry, one of these gay-tendency straight-action people? The assumption of the columnist was that the answer would be no, because people recognize on some level that it is impossible to “overcome” homosexuality, especially enough to have a happy heterosexual marriage.
In conclusion, in order to strengthen both our society and the individuals it is made up of, and in order to strengthen family values, we must allow gay marriage.
As to people who say gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, that is ridiculous. There are many children out there who are in need of loving homes, and to ban gay couples adopting is depriving the children of those homes, while causing pain to the gay couples.
Refusing to grant gay couples the right to marry does not prevent them from being gay or having relationships with people of the same sex, it merely introduces an element of instability into those relationships that is unhealthy for both the people in them and the society around them.
It is often argued that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and gay couples can not biologically do so. This is an insult to the thousands of married heterosexual couples who either choose to be childless or are unable to have children. It insults couples who are biologically able to reproduce but choose instead to adopt, (or not to have children at all) since they have chosen to negate the purpose of marriage (biological reproduction.) It insults couples who are biologically unable to have children, even if they choose to adopt, since according to this logic, those couples are ineligible for marriage. After all, gay couples can adopt as well, and in this they are no different from heterosexual biologically barren couples.
Furthermore, bible-toting anti-gay rights activists must ask themselves whether the marriages of the matriarchs in the Old Testament, all of whom (with the exception of Leah) were barren until God performed a miracle, were invalid up to that point. At the time these couples got married, they clearly were biologically unable to reproduce, not meeting the marriage criteria set up by today’s activists. If one argues God did a miracle to validate the marriage, since God’s miracles can transcend nature, couldn’t He make a man or woman pregnant from gay intercourse – especially if He made a woman, the Virgin Mary, pregnant from no intercourse? (This is leaving aside the separation of Church and State issue, which mandates that religious concerns should not factor into the gay marriage issue at all.)
It has also been argued that marriage is about a true love that homosexuality can not encompass, and that homosexual relationships tend to be more unstable than heterosexual ones. Marriage however, has traditionally been about regulating the merger of properties than about love; for most of Western history, a woman could be forced by her parents into a loveless marriage, which was more about financial stability then about love. There is no way to measure the love in relationship; the surest way to ensure not marriage not based on true love would be to abolish marriage altogether. In terms of the stability element: This is a ludicrous claim, especially since 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. There is no evidence to support this claim, and even if there were, it would be chicken or egg situation: Are these relationships less stable and therefore not good candidates for marriage, or are they less stable precisely because they are not allowed the stability of marriage?
It seems that many anti-gay marriage activists see homosexuality as a choice, an urge to be controlled. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is biologically determined and not a choice. Who would choose to be attracted to a group of people if being attracted to those people makes them social outcasts? It is true that even biological urges can be controlled: The Catholic clergy (sex scandals aside) have done this for ages. But there is a difference between making a conscious choice to set aside one’s urges in favor of one’s beliefs and wanting to fulfill those urges but not being allowed to do so by society. In this first case, one overcomes sexuality in order to pursue a different kind of fulfillment. In the second scenario, one is unable to find fulfillment in life because of their sexuality. This second scenario can lead to intense psychological strain, weakening many individuals in our society. This weakness is detrimental to us all, since our society is the sum of the individuals who comprise it. This applies especially in the case of a democracy, where individuals voting in booths decide who our government will be, and what it will stand for.
Furthermore, even if being gay were a both a choice and immoral, it is important to recognize that preventing gay marriages does not stop people from engaging in homosexual activity.
A New York Times op-ed once posed this question to people who want homosexuals to overcome their tendencies and live straight lives: Would you want to marry, or would you want your child to marry, one of these gay-tendency straight-action people? The assumption of the columnist was that the answer would be no, because people recognize on some level that it is impossible to “overcome” homosexuality, especially enough to have a happy heterosexual marriage.
In conclusion, in order to strengthen both our society and the individuals it is made up of, and in order to strengthen family values, we must allow gay marriage.
As to people who say gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, that is ridiculous. There are many children out there who are in need of loving homes, and to ban gay couples adopting is depriving the children of those homes, while causing pain to the gay couples.
No comments:
Post a Comment