Gay Marriage

"Those who do not know their opponent's arguments do not completely understand their own." ~ Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints

I've known several comedians who would start a joke with something akin to "We all have one in our own family. A crack head, funny Uncle Joe, who was really just a child molester, the one who is always unemployed, begging for money, and the gay one [family member]" etc. Well, as it turns out, I have several gay family members. And it doesn't bother me one bit.

I never understood that out of all of the things or types of people to hate, some people choose good Samaritans who happen to be gay. What's the big friggin' deal? Especially why anyone would oppose gay marriages. Oh, that's right- it allegedly desecrates the "sanctity" of marriage. Uh huh. This in a country where we have had reality shows such as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" or where celebrities often get quickie marriages and then divorced in less than seventy-two hours.

Before I actually read any material on the subject, I never did understand fully why people would be opposed to gay marriages, besides the fact that they are prejudice, of course. But as I researched more of the subject, I found that the reason goes far beyond phobias of gays and what they may or may not do behind closed doors. The reason that these seemingly hateful people have against gay marriage is "the word of God."

I believe in God and Jesus Christ, however, I am not one of those types of people who take the Bible literally word for word. Nearly all of the material I read regarding the reason why gays should not be allowed to be legally married is because "it is against God's will." Nearly all of people against gay marriages quoted some scripture from the Bible, and would be followed by a statement similar to "So you can see, God sees this act as an abomination. To even have a desire or thought of gay acts will make you lose your spot in heaven" etc. They like to use the word "abomination" quite a bit. If we were to take everything to heart that's in the Bible, then any menstruating woman would be an "abomination" as well.

So herein lies the fallacy: there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, and in the definition of marriage, it says that ": the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." (Street Law 216) It is limited to man and woman because of the Bible.

Besides the fact that this definition of marriage is formatted under the laws of the Bible, which it shouldn't be because of the alleged separation of Church and State, why is it that people automatically assume that the Bible is the correct text to use anything as a basis for when there are so many other religions out there? And what of the people who are not religious at all?

No one considers the benefits of gay marriage. If two people are truly in love and wish to be together legally as well as in the eyes of God, whom I believe loves all of His children ("I have looked out on everything I have made and behold it is very good." Genesis 1:31), then why not allow gays the right as the rest of us heterosexual Americans has as well? This is supposed to be a nation of freedom, when this bias clearly points out that it is not.

Many people against gay marriages, or people prejudice against gays, or homophobes consider it all to be deviant acts. But if we accept their unions, it can possibly help with low-self esteem that can lead to social problems. If one is gay, then one probably knows it at a fairly youthful age. Shouldn't we give gay kids "a sense of a real and responsible future, instead of a void where they will be condemned no matter how they live their lives?" (Sullivan)

EMAIL OF THE DAY: A statement of the obvious: "It seems to me that maybe something that goes without saying needs to be said again-- one of the steps that any sane policymaker would take to slow the resurgence of HIV infection among gay men would be to recognize-- and, indeed, encourage-- gay marriages. Obviously, marriage is not for everyone, straight or gay, but the availability of marriage inarguably decreases the spread of STD's among straights. Why wouldn't it have the same effect among gays? It certainly couldn't hurt."

Some viewpoints I have read consider homosexuality to be the "assault of what remains of America's sexual morality," (Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints) that gays and lesbians are a danger to society. But how is it that if two people who are committed to each other and want to have a family be wrong? I have seen first hand some heterosexual married couples who were just entirely one hundred percent wrong for each other, and where the environment had become hostile. For a couple to be straight does not give them an advantage to a happy, healthy marriage. If anyone wants to take "the plunge," then they should by all means be allowed that right just like anyone else.

I believe the opposition to gay marriage and the opposition to gays is simply the replacement to biracial marriages and opposition to blacks. It seems as if [as a whole and as a community or country] we don't have something to fear and hate, then we simply cannot function.

In 1958 in Virginia, a white man and black woman wished to marry, but it was illegal in their state. They went to Washington D.C., got married and returned home. They were shortly thereafter arrested, and the charges would only be dropped if they moved out of the state of Virginia for twenty-five years. They left, fought the case, and later won. The case was Loving v. Virginia.

Nikki Giovanni once said that "if Mathew Shepard wasn't Emmet Till, then who was he?" I think that with time, people will move on from hating gays and gay marriages to something else entirely, as they did with racial differences and anything or anyone else before it. Our country is deep seated in prejudice and hatred, though some would like to believe it is righteousness and following the word of God. How long will it take before we stop hiding behind the Bible?

"When you look at the crystal meth epidemic or the underlying psychological reasons to pursue sex for sex's sake, you have to include the fact that gay teens and gay men have close to no social incentives for coupling or monogamy? Marriage will save and lengthen gay lives, as it saves and lengthens straight ones. There will be no ultimate solution to HIV in the next gay generation without it." (Andrew Sullivan)

Some people are against gay marriage because of the welfare of the children. Some people fear that a gay couple will attempt to make their children gay, forcing them into a life of "deviancy." Or what of when the gay couple divorces? Who will have the legal right over the child? If one of the parents is the biological one, then the answer should be simple. But what if the child is adopted? Then clearly, that should be debated in a court case for custody, just as with any heterosexual couple who had adopted a child and are then divorcing.

I think the law and defintion of marriage should be altered. I think that it should include man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. As long as it is a union between two persons alone, then it should be legal in the "land of the free" that is America. The term "free" should include all races, ethnicities, creeds, religions, and sexual preferences. If we want to talk about the "welfare" of the children, then, going back to what Andrew Sullivan mentioned, how is this train of thought affecting the gay youth as well as straight children? We are teaching the straight children by poor example that it is okay to single people out, and to condemn, and to be unaccepting of those who are different from us. We are teaching them to not see people on the content of their character, but on their personal, private business. We are teaching gay children that there will eventually be no love or acceptance for them as far as relationships and having families of their own. We are teaching them that straight people are better and will go to Heaven, and we are teaching them self hatred. Have we learned nothing from the "separate, but equal" time in our history? We are in fact allowing history to repeat itself, which should not be occuring. It may not be the same situation, but it is in fact parallel.

"We have now had one year of legal same-sex marriage in our state. Despite predictions, we have not witnessed any threat to so-called 'traditional marriage.' There has not been an attack on family, and almost all would admit that very little has changed. In fact, however, something has changed. Many of our citizens have experienced the joy of marriage for the first time where the laws of our state have said, 'You are equal.' We have seen that joy in our son. To take that away would be an injustice. It would be devastating for our family and the real values we believe family should represent" (The Boston Globe)

And what of mothers and fathers who want their children to be happy and healthy, no matter what their sexual lifestyle? We are working on the deconstruction of our community. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual activity or legal bindings between two consenting adults. If we want to talk about abominations and deviancy, then what of a situation involving a pedophile wishing to marry an eleven year old? Then there would be cause for strong opposition.

In the past year or so, Mary-Kay Letourneau married her former victim Villi Fualaau. A lot of people decided that perhaps it really was true love for those two, in spite of the extreme age gap and that it was between teacher and student (Villi was 12 at the time their relationship began). They also have two children together. Though some still feel it's gross, the two lovers had the right to legalize their union under the eyes of God, even though the relaionship started when he was only a child, and essentially, she was marrying her victim. When will we realize that if the relationship is between two consenting adults, even if they are gay, that they have the right to happiness, legally, with their lovers as well?