"Inherently Unequal"
I wrote this editorial for our school newspaper, but in fear of being shut down by the township board of education, our advisor, Mrs. Zastrow, wouldn't allow me to publish. According to her the article was too "inflammatory." That’s bullshit in my opinion. But let’s see what you guys think of it.
My name is Bhavik Lathia and my religion condemns homosexuality. According to my religion, sex should be about “procreation” and not about “recreation.” Clearly, when two men or two women have sex, it’s purely for recreational purposes. Therefore, according to my religion, not only should same sex marriages be banned, but the practice of homosexuality as a whole should be outlawed.
Those of you that know me know that I do not agree with any one of those aforementioned beliefs. As many people that I know, I, too, used to follow my religion’s beliefs very strictly. I never questioned any of its beliefs and based all my beliefs on those of my religion. I have grown and changed much since that time, but this article isn’t about that. This article is about same sex marriages.
Many opponents of legalizing same sex marriages bring up the argument that same sex marriages would undermine the institution of marriage. I, however, fail to understand how a marriage between Bob and Joe has any negative impact on, much less undermine, a legal marriage between Tom and Susie. What I have come to understand is that these opponents rarely think of a “legal marriage” in a civil or secular sense, but rather perceive it in a religious or sacred sense.
To them, gay marriages are nothing but a desecration of a holy institution created by God for procreation. In a society based upon secular laws, however, such religious arguments are unacceptable. Civil marriages cannot be restricted by how different religious groups view marriage. We can not ban civil marriages between people of two different religions simply because certain faiths consider it sacrilege. Also, we cannot ban marriages between people of two different races simply because some groups believe it contrary to God’s will. So why should marriage between two people of the same sex be any different?
Other critics of gay marriage have similar views as my religion. They argue that gay marriage is unnatural because it cannot produce children and that it undermines the institution of marriage because it was created to promote and protect procreation. If we based our laws based on this argument, however, we would have to radically change many of them. For example, we would have to outlaw marriage between all infertile couples. This would include young couples that are infertile due to health issues and old couples that are infertile due to their age. Here, let me point out the heat that gay couples receive in contrast to infertile couples. Many people will take a strong stand against same sex marriage but remain supportive or indifferent towards infertile marriage. This proves that people’s disapproval of gay marriage cannot possibly arise from the fact the couple won’t be having children.
People don’t get married just to have children or to follow religious mandates. People get married to pursue intimate relationships with those that they love. This is true in all cases; even those marriages that include a couple of the same sex. Therefore, when we define marriage, there is no reason why we should exclude homosexuals. Marriage should be an institution that provides protection and stability for all human relationships, regardless of sex.
Also, you should check out this article. I was pretty excited when I read it. People are finally starting to listen to common sense and uphold basic constitutional values in this "secular" society of ours.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/gay_marriage
Hopefully the ruling is upheld in higher courts..