As I was reading an article indicating the Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage, I kept asking myself why and who cares. Does it matter who loves whom? Should not all Americans have certain unalienable rights such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I have met lots of people who favor the marriage between two men or two women. Then there are those who tell me they have lots of gay friends and do not hate gays, yet they are against them marrying. I am not sure how you can say you are okay with your friends living together as partners and not okay with them married. Then there is the other group that is just against it, but why?
As a former classroom teacher, current events, such as this, often came up. I encouraged students to discuss these topics, but to do so with strong arguments, not just opinions. The groups that tend to be against gay marriage mostly falls into two areas. One, they were simply against the thought of displays of affection, or more pointed, bedroom acts, and two, they said it is against the teachings of the Bible.
When looking at the first argument, why are you sitting there thinking about it. "What do you want to do today?" "Oh I am going to think about two men (or women) getting it on." Really, is that how you spend your days, worrying about what two people are doing in their bedroom? That is just weird. Your argument against marriage is due to homophobia. Because of this, maybe we should make being a doctor illegal because of iatrophobia. All you iatrophobics out there, do not worry, a movement should start soon.
To resolve the issue above, let me tell you a story. Several years back. my wife and I took a trip to Minnesota with a good friend and his partner. At one point in my trip, my friend and his partner were, making out. After an uncomfortable mile, I spoke up and asked that they stop. I do not care who you are, heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, whatever-sexual, DO NOT MAKE OUT IN THE BACK OF MY CAR! Seriously, I do not need to, or want to see it. As far as I am concerned it is like watching my parents putting on a display of heavy affection. I will expand this and say in all public places. I love my wife, but I do not need to mack on her in a public place to prove it. We talked; she feels the same. We are not against two people loving each other. Go ahead, just do so in private.
Then there is religion. If you are against it because the Bible says it is wrong, please ask yourself this. Do you go to church weekly? Do you read the Bible on a regular basis? Do you truly live by the teachings of the Bible or are you one of those who attends church twice a year and calls yourself a true Christian? If you are the later, please do not use this argument. You are using that argument as an excuse to really address your feelings. If you are the former, I can understand your position.
The other part of the religious argument is the one we must address. It is probably at the heart of the issue. It is the issue of the separation between church and state. Who is making the laws, the church? Those days ended with Roger Williams and Rhode Island. Do not use a biblical argument to overturn state laws. Do not use biblical arguments to create federal laws. It is for this reason I feel the Supreme Court has only one path to take. Marriage can no longer be defined as one man and one women, but rather the union between two loving people who want to commit themselves to the other person for their life.
It used to be illegal for different races to marry. We realized that was due to unjust fear. Let us put our fears aside, address the law from a non-religious point of view and understand this may not be resolved in the upcoming Supreme Court ruling, but gay marriage will be sanctioned in the future.
Plus, the women's work around my house doesn't seem to happen with enough efficiency. I figured 1-2 more employees focused in that area would yield better results.
Social Security survivor benefits require a marriage to last ten years before the surviving spouse can collect from an ex-husband or ex-wife. I would have to assume there would be little impact on SS if gay marriage is recognized. (therefore the cost to society is minimal at best) I thought civil unions were the way to go for same sex couples until I read Brian's comment. If I were to remarry in the church, I would not want the label civil union attached to my marriage. If a person asks me if I am married, I answer yes. This tells them I am a heterosexual man, which is not what they asked. In my mind this was appropriate, until I realized I was being a homophobe. We allow interracial marriages, and distant cousins can marry- this can have serious consequences genetically. Same sex marriage can not affect the gene pool adversely. (therefore, from a Scientific standpoint there should be no objection either) My opinion took some time to become changed, but I do think we should allow same sex marriage. I have just laid out the reasons why I feel that way.
Religious reasons are no longer a reason because some faiths are prepared to accept it. Society already has rules for Social Security benefits for survivors. Science can not object, because same sex marriages can do no harm to the gene pool.
;-P
I want the legal and social recognition of being husband and wife regardless of whether the priest who married us was authorized to do it by his church. (He actually got into trouble for doing it one too many times, poor guy.) I like assuming the mutual rights AND obligations with one license and ceremony. I have always taken that promise very seriously. My gay brothers and sisters deserve the same rights as well.
Not to cloud the issue, but the state does not forbid two carriers of a recessive genetic disease to marry each other. It does not forbid a person with a dominant genetic condition to marry, period. And it shouldn't. So how is it the state's business to limit a couple's degree of consanguinity because of potential birth defects? Yes, the thought is 'icky', but we might want to look at things logically. 80 years ago the idea of white people marrying black people was 'icky' too.
I'm not sure "civil union" is ideal, as then I'd feel I'd have been forced into a union against my will. However, I might be more amenable to the term if I was guaranteed certain benefits and protection against unreasonable workload requests.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay "Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children. A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother."
Or have I convinced everyone?
Since we have devolved into a culture that exacts no measure of responsibility for a persons choices in life ... since we believe society must resolve issues they did not manifest ... this secular issue is pertinent ... if we are to start expecting individuals to suffer their life choices without societal umbrella's ... it is a non issue. None here are accepting the cost to society for encouraging behavior without expecting people are held responsible for the result. It is exactly why we are in debt beyond our capacity. Go ahead ... continue to have these meaningless conversations of religious and anti-religious nonsense about emotional and temporal conditions of man. Continue to argue the language and purpose of religions and whether one can cleverly enumerate a position .... We have quickly devolved into a society that is distracted by nonsense while we evaporate the foundation provided us ... pity.
Would you say "Baby....what we have together is so good, we have to get the government in on this. We can't just share this commitment between us, we need to get judges and lawyers involved in this"
Studies also prove that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Netherlands study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.
When one classification of society is granted special privilege over another, then there is societal oppression. It wasn't that long ago that LGBTQ individuals were forced to remain in the closet to gain employment and remain employed. The worth of a person should not be determined by sexual preference, but by their character and social functioning. As far as taking a position of not allowing adoption by members of the LGBTQ community, other research doesn't support your statement.
Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating. Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage. Worse, gay marriage separates marriage from parenting. It says that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Scandinavians are buying that message, and marriage is in a steep decline, as is child well-being.
There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being. Let us be clear: A good, compassionate and just society always comes to the aid of fatherless or motherless children. But a good, compassionate, and just society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless children.
Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference. Fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A scientific review of more than 100 published studies on the benefits of child-parent relationships found that “overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being and health.” Very simply, the same-sex family is problematic because same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father just because adults want it that way.