The case for gay marriage Part II

17 Jun

When gay people are denied the right to enter the legal contract of marriage based on a person or groups spiritual beliefs it is a sign of disrespect. It assumes that their own view of spirituality is the only view and that anyone that does not comply with it is therefore unequal. That is passing judgment which is another thing the big guy frowns upon. It is intermingling the church and state which is something the government is supposed to frown on, but only does so when convenient. Looking at it from this angle do two wrongs make a right? Of course not, they just make one even bigger wrong.

Socially the need for such distinctions of who can or cannot marry is a frivolous outdated notion. The fact is heterosexual marriages fail at an alarming rate which means that they are no experts on the subject, and that is not said with disrespect, just as a point of fact. Secondly, marriage is no longer the true norm, people choose to live together, live separately but date exclusively long term, or remain single and play the field far more than in the past and those concepts are all considered socially acceptable. Seeing a gay couple these days in any locale of decent size isn’t an unusual thing anymore it shouldn’t be shocking to realize that perhaps they may choose to want to be married.

Other outdated notions which can be debunked to further strengthen why gay marriage is not something to be afraid of or discriminated against are as follows:

Gay marriage will not destroy religion. No church or religion can be forced to conduct or recognize a gay marriage if that goes against their belief system, therefore no religion need worry about any unwanted involvement with the gay community. Furthermore it has been noted that in some cases it does actually bring gay people to the church! Imagine that! As many of the religions which are willing to conduct and recognize gay marriages require that gay couples go through the same pre-marital classes as heterosexuals and be involved within the church community, many gay couples have done just that. Isn’t that really the point of church, bringing people closer to God?

The argument that gay marriage will destroy the nation can be easily debunked. Interracial marriage didn’t destroy the nation, to the contrary it helped heal the nation and erase at least to some degrees the lines that divided people. If mixed marriages were never legalized would the world have such people as Derek Jeter, Rosario Dawson, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Vin Diesel, Alicia Keys, or Faith Evans? Has their presence in the world destroyed anything? Of course not, and neither did the marriage of their parents as so many felt it would.

Arguing that since gay couples cannot naturally reproduce with one another as a basis for disallowing their right to marry is equally ludicrous. If a major factor for deciding who could or could not marry was the ability to reproduce then countless couples need to have their marriage dissolved. Does the ability of a couple to reproduce make them superior in the eyes of the law or God? What about people that marry and choose not to reproduce or even take medical steps to make sure they can’t? Would they then be in breach of the law and subject to legal action? Simply put you cannot have it both ways.In fact, gay couples that cannot naturally produce would often like to have children and be more than willing to open their homes to the countless children awaiting adoption or stuck in the foster care system. Would providing them with a stable loving home be a bad thing?

Finally the best argument for gay marriage is that it is just the right thing to do. The world has enough hate and discord that the concept of taking steps to deny love is silly and quite frankly shameful. Maybe the view is naive or biased, but people being in love and wanting to devote their life to each other is beautiful, and we should want to see those people have the ability to do so the same as anyone else. Any two consenting adults that choose to enter into the contract of marriage should be allowed to do so and not be insulted by being told they have to call it a civil union, domestic partnership, or legally recognized union. It is a marriage, get over the semantics, lose the fear, and let love reign. Is that such a bad thing?

%d bloggers like this: