An Argument for Gay Marriage
Why not gay marriage?
Currently in the United States and across the globe debate rages on as to whether to allow homosexual couples the right to join in state-sanctioned matrimony. In an effort to maintain the status quo of inequality toward gays, many locales have taken pre-emptive measures to ban gay marriage at the state and national levels. Others are contemplating such bans and to further deem the bans appropriate and acceptable, they are putting the issue to a vote in their districts.
There are many arguments against giving gays the legal right to marry, but when looked at logically, objectively, and thoughtfully, not a single one of them can stand in the mind of a reasonable human being. Consider them one by one for a moment:
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
This is factually untrue. The Bible does indeed state that God made Adam and Eve and if you are Christian or of other faiths that share this religious viewpoint you believe this. You would also, however, believe that we are all God’s children created in his likeness and that he is the Ultimate Creator. It therefore stands to reason that yes, God did make Adam and Eve, but that He also went on to create Ishmal and Bob and Martha and Susie. In fact, with that argument, God even went so far as to create your annoying neighbor, Fred, down the street whom you despise.
Homosexuality is wrong, it says so in the Bible
There are many people who at a moment's notice can quickly quote several small passages from the Bible citing the fact that homosexuality is wrong. Because the Bible is believed to be the Word of the Lord by persons of many faiths this argument is very powerful. The first issue with this argument is that the Bible has been translated thousands of times, altered by differing religious and governing bodies over the many hundreds of years, and like documents such as the Constitution of the United States, can easily be interpreted to present an argument from nearly any viewpoint.
The second inconsistency with this argument is that the Bible, as much as it is a revered, cherished, and followed text, it is most certainly not the law of the land, and as such (like it or not) what is said in the Bible is therefore not relevant in the laws of states and nations. Unlike a select few Islamic nations in the World, every other nation has a constitutional governing text of some sort and a power structure that issues decrees and interpretations on its own existing laws. Not one uses the Bible as its sole governing document. Many, like the United States, incorporate various aspects of teachings from the Bible and similar documents into their legal structure (such as “Thou shall not kill”), but the Book has no legal standing in a court of law.
In the United States, where freedom of religion is an inalienable right to all, the argument is diminished even further, because the Bible which is the Word of The Lord to Christians and other sects, can be and oftentimes is, viewed as “just another holy text” by the millions of practicing Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, atheists, and other groups who hold equal legal protection for their religious and nonreligious viewpoints.
The founders of the United States of America, while most where Christian, purposefully separated their religious beliefs from their political beliefs in an effort to build a successful democracy where everyone’s opinion and beliefs could be stated and practiced without fear or reprisal. There is and will most likely continue to be a defacto separation of church and state in this nation, because even though Christians are the majority in the United States at this moment, logically it stands to reason that it may not always be that way. Just as Christians would not want to be subjected to an Islamic U.S. government, Islamic Americans have the same right to not be subjected to a Christian one. Therefore, again, what the Bible says about the subject of homosexuality (or any other topic for that matter) is matter-of-factly irrelevant under existing governing laws in this country and most others.
Marriage is a sacred institution, designed to build families and protect children
Marriage is indeed a sacred institution in many cultures of the world, dating back thousands of years - religious marriage that is. State sponsored marriage and the tax benefits, legal protections and other rights it affords are relatively modern in comparison. Gay couples who seek to join in union are not seeking religious marriage, but rather state appointed marriages that make them equal couples with heterosexuals under the law. They are not petitioning the Vatican to allow gay marriage; they are petitioning the non-secular governmental bodies of their state and national governments to extend legal protections, benefits and responsibilities to committed long-term relationships between two people.
The national divorce rate in America consistently hovers at or above 50%. If marriage between a man and a woman is designed to build happy families, then why is it acceptable to have single parents raising children, or a multitude of step-parents holding say over the wellbeing of shared children? One man, one woman… right? The truth is that the traditional American family of a dad and a mom living together and raising their children is quickly becoming a minority in this nation. Like the American dream of the house with the white picket fence, most Americans do not live in this reality. Legislating morals is not practicing the values of a truly free society and it is a futile attempt to hold on to untruthful realities from times past. To truly combat corrosion of the traditional American family the most logical law to pass would be to ban divorces of state recognized unions and to not allow unfertile heterosexuals to join together in matrimony.
As demonstrated across the world, committed gay couples are just as successful at building productive, healthy families as their heterosexual counterparts. Many couples adopt children or raise their own biological offspring. In nearly all states in the U.S. gays can be and are foster parents, fulfilling a crucial need in overburdened state systems. If homosexuals are viewed as acceptable foster parents by the state (and adoptive parents in many states), then how does joining them together legally negatively affect that acceptableness? A gay couple raising children does not have impact on a straight couple raising theirs. Also, many gay couples who long to get married are not interested in raising a family, so the protection of children argument does not apply to all to begin with.
If we allow gay marriage, what’s next? Marriage of people to animals, legalization of polygamy or incest?
The logical answer to those questions is a resounding, emphatic ‘no’. Both of those notions, and the many other ‘what-if’ scenarios out there are scare tactics produced by groups opposing gay marriage that attempt to tie the marriage of two legally consenting adults to such illegal and massively unacceptable behavior. Not only are those acts illegal and unacceptable, but what sets them apart from the idea of gay marriage is that they are illegal and unacceptable for reason of physical safety and wellbeing. The concepts of bestiality, polygamy, and incest are outlawed to protect animals with no voice, women from being abused, and preventing the procreation of children suffering from retardation and other traumas. Allowing two gay adults who can already legally consent to have sexual relations with each other the rights and responsibilities afforded by a state recognized union does not harm or threaten the safety and wellbeing of others.
The notion of gay rights, such as marriage, should be put to a vote by the populous
Gays are a minority in this nation. Just as blacks, Latinos and countless others are and have been. When Abraham Lincoln decreed that slaves be set free he did not put the subject to a vote. Had he done so, the southern states would have voted against the idea. Giving a majority the power to choose the human rights associated with a minority group accomplishes nothing, other than to write discrimination into law. Courts then become the only outlet available to minority groups who then have to fight for full and equal standing under the law. It is a sad day in any nation when a group of its citizens have to petition the courts to undo laws that made them less equal than their majority counterparts. It leads to further mistreatment of minority groups, and as a matter of basic human rights should not be allowed.
A common catchphrase relating to gay marriage was introduced to Americans in the early 21st century by the Bush Administration. The administration states that in recent times the nation has been subjected to the rulings of “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench”. Simply put, that is a carefully constructed, politicized statement aimed at appeasing a voting bloc favorable to the President and his party. All judges in the U.S. should be actively interpreting and applying the law fairly and uniformly. As much as the President would like to have Americans believe that judges are "legislating" from their benches, the truth is that they are simply interpreting the existing laws of the land and issuing their ruling opinions - which is the job they were sworn to do.
God hates fags
The notion of whether God hates fags (as the self-appointed Reverend Fred Phelps would like to have us all believe) and whether gays are indeed “biological errors” (as radio show host “Dr. Laura” suggests) are irrelevant messages of hate aimed at diverting attention away from the true argument of whether homosexual couples should be allowed to marry under state and national law. So far, the opposition has stated that it is against God’s wishes; it destroys families; and it endangers children. Their arguments do not appear to have much weight or bearing when looked at logically.
Loving all of you; meaning it.
Toodles Noodles! :-)
Currently in the United States and across the globe debate rages on as to whether to allow homosexual couples the right to join in state-sanctioned matrimony. In an effort to maintain the status quo of inequality toward gays, many locales have taken pre-emptive measures to ban gay marriage at the state and national levels. Others are contemplating such bans and to further deem the bans appropriate and acceptable, they are putting the issue to a vote in their districts.
There are many arguments against giving gays the legal right to marry, but when looked at logically, objectively, and thoughtfully, not a single one of them can stand in the mind of a reasonable human being. Consider them one by one for a moment:
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
This is factually untrue. The Bible does indeed state that God made Adam and Eve and if you are Christian or of other faiths that share this religious viewpoint you believe this. You would also, however, believe that we are all God’s children created in his likeness and that he is the Ultimate Creator. It therefore stands to reason that yes, God did make Adam and Eve, but that He also went on to create Ishmal and Bob and Martha and Susie. In fact, with that argument, God even went so far as to create your annoying neighbor, Fred, down the street whom you despise.
Homosexuality is wrong, it says so in the Bible
There are many people who at a moment's notice can quickly quote several small passages from the Bible citing the fact that homosexuality is wrong. Because the Bible is believed to be the Word of the Lord by persons of many faiths this argument is very powerful. The first issue with this argument is that the Bible has been translated thousands of times, altered by differing religious and governing bodies over the many hundreds of years, and like documents such as the Constitution of the United States, can easily be interpreted to present an argument from nearly any viewpoint.
The second inconsistency with this argument is that the Bible, as much as it is a revered, cherished, and followed text, it is most certainly not the law of the land, and as such (like it or not) what is said in the Bible is therefore not relevant in the laws of states and nations. Unlike a select few Islamic nations in the World, every other nation has a constitutional governing text of some sort and a power structure that issues decrees and interpretations on its own existing laws. Not one uses the Bible as its sole governing document. Many, like the United States, incorporate various aspects of teachings from the Bible and similar documents into their legal structure (such as “Thou shall not kill”), but the Book has no legal standing in a court of law.
In the United States, where freedom of religion is an inalienable right to all, the argument is diminished even further, because the Bible which is the Word of The Lord to Christians and other sects, can be and oftentimes is, viewed as “just another holy text” by the millions of practicing Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, atheists, and other groups who hold equal legal protection for their religious and nonreligious viewpoints.
The founders of the United States of America, while most where Christian, purposefully separated their religious beliefs from their political beliefs in an effort to build a successful democracy where everyone’s opinion and beliefs could be stated and practiced without fear or reprisal. There is and will most likely continue to be a defacto separation of church and state in this nation, because even though Christians are the majority in the United States at this moment, logically it stands to reason that it may not always be that way. Just as Christians would not want to be subjected to an Islamic U.S. government, Islamic Americans have the same right to not be subjected to a Christian one. Therefore, again, what the Bible says about the subject of homosexuality (or any other topic for that matter) is matter-of-factly irrelevant under existing governing laws in this country and most others.
Marriage is a sacred institution, designed to build families and protect children
Marriage is indeed a sacred institution in many cultures of the world, dating back thousands of years - religious marriage that is. State sponsored marriage and the tax benefits, legal protections and other rights it affords are relatively modern in comparison. Gay couples who seek to join in union are not seeking religious marriage, but rather state appointed marriages that make them equal couples with heterosexuals under the law. They are not petitioning the Vatican to allow gay marriage; they are petitioning the non-secular governmental bodies of their state and national governments to extend legal protections, benefits and responsibilities to committed long-term relationships between two people.
The national divorce rate in America consistently hovers at or above 50%. If marriage between a man and a woman is designed to build happy families, then why is it acceptable to have single parents raising children, or a multitude of step-parents holding say over the wellbeing of shared children? One man, one woman… right? The truth is that the traditional American family of a dad and a mom living together and raising their children is quickly becoming a minority in this nation. Like the American dream of the house with the white picket fence, most Americans do not live in this reality. Legislating morals is not practicing the values of a truly free society and it is a futile attempt to hold on to untruthful realities from times past. To truly combat corrosion of the traditional American family the most logical law to pass would be to ban divorces of state recognized unions and to not allow unfertile heterosexuals to join together in matrimony.
As demonstrated across the world, committed gay couples are just as successful at building productive, healthy families as their heterosexual counterparts. Many couples adopt children or raise their own biological offspring. In nearly all states in the U.S. gays can be and are foster parents, fulfilling a crucial need in overburdened state systems. If homosexuals are viewed as acceptable foster parents by the state (and adoptive parents in many states), then how does joining them together legally negatively affect that acceptableness? A gay couple raising children does not have impact on a straight couple raising theirs. Also, many gay couples who long to get married are not interested in raising a family, so the protection of children argument does not apply to all to begin with.
If we allow gay marriage, what’s next? Marriage of people to animals, legalization of polygamy or incest?
The logical answer to those questions is a resounding, emphatic ‘no’. Both of those notions, and the many other ‘what-if’ scenarios out there are scare tactics produced by groups opposing gay marriage that attempt to tie the marriage of two legally consenting adults to such illegal and massively unacceptable behavior. Not only are those acts illegal and unacceptable, but what sets them apart from the idea of gay marriage is that they are illegal and unacceptable for reason of physical safety and wellbeing. The concepts of bestiality, polygamy, and incest are outlawed to protect animals with no voice, women from being abused, and preventing the procreation of children suffering from retardation and other traumas. Allowing two gay adults who can already legally consent to have sexual relations with each other the rights and responsibilities afforded by a state recognized union does not harm or threaten the safety and wellbeing of others.
The notion of gay rights, such as marriage, should be put to a vote by the populous
Gays are a minority in this nation. Just as blacks, Latinos and countless others are and have been. When Abraham Lincoln decreed that slaves be set free he did not put the subject to a vote. Had he done so, the southern states would have voted against the idea. Giving a majority the power to choose the human rights associated with a minority group accomplishes nothing, other than to write discrimination into law. Courts then become the only outlet available to minority groups who then have to fight for full and equal standing under the law. It is a sad day in any nation when a group of its citizens have to petition the courts to undo laws that made them less equal than their majority counterparts. It leads to further mistreatment of minority groups, and as a matter of basic human rights should not be allowed.
A common catchphrase relating to gay marriage was introduced to Americans in the early 21st century by the Bush Administration. The administration states that in recent times the nation has been subjected to the rulings of “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench”. Simply put, that is a carefully constructed, politicized statement aimed at appeasing a voting bloc favorable to the President and his party. All judges in the U.S. should be actively interpreting and applying the law fairly and uniformly. As much as the President would like to have Americans believe that judges are "legislating" from their benches, the truth is that they are simply interpreting the existing laws of the land and issuing their ruling opinions - which is the job they were sworn to do.
God hates fags
The notion of whether God hates fags (as the self-appointed Reverend Fred Phelps would like to have us all believe) and whether gays are indeed “biological errors” (as radio show host “Dr. Laura” suggests) are irrelevant messages of hate aimed at diverting attention away from the true argument of whether homosexual couples should be allowed to marry under state and national law. So far, the opposition has stated that it is against God’s wishes; it destroys families; and it endangers children. Their arguments do not appear to have much weight or bearing when looked at logically.
Loving all of you; meaning it.
Toodles Noodles! :-)