Same-sex-marriage, and whether or not it should be allowed to exist in the United States is a topic that has caught and held the attention of many people of many different walks of life, from the highest head of the executive branch, to the many blue-collar citizens going to and from work everyday.
There are some who say that it should be completely outlawed, that gays and lesbians should be denied all monetary and social benefits that might go along with marriage. There are others who believe that same sex couples should be allowed civil unions, but not marriage, as this would protect what many call the sanctity of marriage, while still allowing the couple to receive equal benefits.
Still others, who refuse to stop at partial equality, are fighting to gain full marriage rights for the gay and lesbian community. If all of the people, on each of these three sides to this debate, would, even if only for a moment, take time to think about the ideals and premises that this country was founded upon, it would not take long for them to realize that not only should same-sex unions be allowed, but also same-sex-marriages.
In order to prove the validity of an argument one must present both sides of the argument. This being the case, one of the larger arguments against same-sex-marriages is the belief that in a society that acknowledge homosexual behavior, more young people will be encouraged to experiment and more will be discouraged from overcoming homosexual desires (http://www. nogaymarriage. com/talkingpoints. html).
When one looks at this statement with a critical eye, and contrasts this statement with the basic freedoms, such as religious tolerance and freedom from racial discrimination, that the oppressed of the world have fought so hard, and for so long to gain, one might see that this statement not only stands against the idea of equal rights, but is flagrantly flying in the face of concepts such a freedom and choice. Another argument used by the opposition of same-sex-marriages is that sodomy, being defined as Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, is illegal in some places. It has only been recently that 38 states laws have been repealed, the most recent being Texas.
The last 13 states with sodomy laws are Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri, which prohibit multiple forms of sex between same sex partners and these laws were repealed by the US Supreme court in the first half of 2003 , and Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia, which ban consensual sodomy for everyone. After the Lawrence V. Texas case legal experts believe that the sodomy laws in these nine other states are now, also, null and void. Something else that many anti-same-sex-marriage advocates call upon is the argument that sexual orientations other then heterosexual are sinful.
The first question one might ask is In what religion/s are same sex couples sinful. Then they would realize that it is an irrelevant question, because the issue is not whether it is sinful or not, but whether religious doctrines should have any bearing on issues of the state. When one looks at religion, yes, many religions, such as some Muslim, Christianity, and Judaism do consider them to be sinful, but this should definitely have no bearing on whether or not the U. S. lows it, because of the basic idea that there is a separation between the church and the state. If a church or mosque wishes to deny its services to a couple because of their sexual orientation, then so be it. The state, though, has no right to say that its illegal. Some say that Marriage is the providing of an optimal environment for raising children. At first glance, one realizes that this same argument was used to stop interracial couples from marrying.
Look again and one realizes that, discarding the fact that this has already been proven an invalid argument, it might make sense but for that fact that the only abnormality in the environment that two same sex partners provide to their children is that absence of a traditional set of parents. If this were the true reason that same-sex-marriages are not allowed, then one might then conclude that single parents not be allowed to have children, because the passing of a child between one another on every other weekend surly is not the optimal environment for raising children.
Along with this, if this argument were passable, one might argue that couples in which one partner is infertile, or in which there are plans to not have any children, should not be permitted to gain a marriage license. It seems, although, that nobody addresses these great injustices toward the children of our world. A website fighting to convince people that if same-sex-marriages is allowed, then the meaning of marriage will be lost is www. nogaymarriage. com/talkingpoints. html. This statement is of course preposterous.
One of the definitions of the word marriage is The union of two persons (http://dictionary. reference. com/search? q=marriage). By this definition, it seems as though the meaning of marriage already encompasses same-sex-marriages. By this admission, the only thing that will be lost upon that achievement of same-sex-marriages will be that denial of rights for a substantial group of Americans. If same sex relationships are allowed to acquire marital status, some anti-same-sex-marriage advocates point out, then bisexuals will demand the right to redefine marriage to their own ends.
If this is allowed to happen, they say, there will be no stopping point (http://www. nogaymarriage. com/ talkingpoints. html). Continuing with the example of bisexuals, (Bisexuals being those who like both the opposite of sex, and the same sex as theirs. ) they will, by their nature, either marry the opposite of sex, or marry someone of the same sex. After realizing that, this argument becomes moot. Now that the arguments against same-sex-marriages have been shown to be unfounded, the arguments for same-sex-marriage will be pointed out.
One argument for its legalization is that the prohibition of same sex marriage is the same as the laws that were abolished in the sixtys that prevented the marrying of inter-racial couples (http: //www. lesbianlife. about. com/cs/wedding/a/marriage. htm). In both of these cases, people were forbidden to marry based on societys idea of the definition of marriage at the time, which, it seems, is best interpreted as flexible. Another reason that same sex marriage should be allowed is that when one looks at the purpose of marriage, they realize that it is family.
And family, having a broad constituency, is based, not on gender, or sexual orientation, but love. As mentioned before, even when one looks at the biological fact that same sex marriages cannot produce children at all, one must realize that there many heterosexual couples out there by whom no children can be produced, yet they are permitted to marry. Furthermore, there are many children waiting to be adopted into a loving family, in this way can a same-sex-marriage still produce a family. Most people in the United States today are able to consider marriage a right guaranteed under the constitution.
Even allowing civil unions and not marriage to same sex couples, therefore, is separate but equal, assuming equality. This, by the way, was decided to be unconstitutional long ago, in 1954, to be exact, with the decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Remy 212), when dealing with the distinction of race. The distinction of sexual orientation should be no different then that of racial difference, or the difference between the sexes. And finally, marriage is a decision that should belong to two people who are in love, not anyone else.
Neither the government nor any individual should be able to say whether or not the two people may marry, as it is none of anyones business. Why is it nobodies business one might ask. It is nobodies business because it does not affect anyone, other then the couple in question. After reviewing both sides and examining whether or not each argument stands logically, it can easily be seen that it would be the most moral line of action to not only allow a civil union for the gay/lesbian community, but also to allow them to marry, as this would be the course of action most in line with the ideals presented in the constitution.
The people who actively fight against gay marriage might be one of many groups of people, they might be religious zealots trying to push their religions beliefs onto other people, they might be sad individuals who have homophobia, and are desperately trying to stave off their worst nightmare, or they might simply be people who were raised to hate people unlike themselves, just like every generation of Ku Klux Klan members have taught their children. Whatever the case, Americas historical sense of tolerance and freedom will surely ring through in the end.
