The Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriages
- Unconvincing.
Written 3/31/04
In Recent Months, the issue of same-sex
marriage seems to have flared up to new heights. While some people
are for them, there seems to be just as many if not more people against
them. Those against them have put forth quite a few different arguments
for their position. In the following paragraphs, I'm going to take
what seem to be the top 6 of those arguments, and show why they don't
hold any water.
One of the things many people against
same-sex marriages like to say, is that they must defend the sanctity
of marriage. I'd like to know if that's their true intentions, where
have they been? We're living in time when the divorce rate is nearly
50%, and getting married on TV is done for kicks or for money. Then
there is that place called Las Vegas, where some people go, get married,
then a few days later, get it annulled. So I ask if none of that was
harmful to your sanctity, then why is it that two people who love
each other and want to marry, who just happen to be the same gender,
is so harmful? I don't see it, and I think it's hypocritical for people
to be up in arms about same-sex marriages, when they weren't about
the other things previously mentioned.
Another argument against them, and this
one can be a touchy one, is that God is against same-sex marriages.
Now I don't want to offend any Christians, but I did a little digging,
and it looks like it is possible God isn't against them. In a book
called Same Sex-Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell,
he lists some Liturgies that recognized the bond between a same-sex
couple. If you could call it an actual marriage, that could be up
for discussion, but the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches,
did perform these Liturgies from the 8th century up till the 17th
century, and it wasn't until the 14th century in Europe, that being
gay became a horrible sin. Before that it wasn't, which means, God
changed his mind? It is also interesting to note that two early Christian
Martyrs, Sergius and Bacchus, were a same-sex couple. They weren't
put to death for their relationship though, but for their Christian
faith by the Romans. As for the people who use the earlier Hebrew
part of the bible as proof God is against same-sex marriages, I would
like to point out that after the Jews escaped from the Egyptians at
the end of the second millennium BC, they went and rejected many Egyptian
mores. One of those appears to be same-sex marriages. So is God actually
against them? Or was the religion influenced by man? The answer to
me appears to be the later, but then again it doesn't matter what
the answer is. In this country we have something called the separation
of church and state. So even if it turns out God does disapprove of
same-sex marriages, it doesn't matter. The laws of the state are separate
from the laws of the church, which does mean no church would have
to marry a same-sex couple if the government were to make them legal.
It would just mean that two people who love each other will be able
to get all the legal rights of marriage, despite being the same sex.
When I hear people say that marriage
has always been between a man and a woman, I wonder if they even know
what they are talking about. I don't know who it was that decided
this was true and should be used as a argument against same-sex marriages,
but it certainly seems like a lot of people have been running with
it. The unfortunate thing is that if any of these people actually
took the time to verify this, they would have seen how wrong it is.
Dating back as far as ancient Egypt, there is strong evidence same-sex
marriages existed. There is also strong evidence that they were part
of Greek society. Two Roman Emperors, Nero and Elagabalus, had same-sex
marriages, not to each other, and there is evidence same-sex marriages
weren't limited to just them in Roman society. In Africa there have
been same-sex marriages, and even in pre-modern European, which is
described in the book by John Boswell that I mentioned earlier. Lastly
but not leastly, there were same-sex marriages in Native American
culture. I can't speak for today, but I have personally read about
such relationships as late as the 19th century. I'm sure I could find
more if I continued to look, for example I have briefly read about
same-sex marriages in Asian history, but didn't look into it further.
I didn't need too. I think I've found enough that shows whoever the
person was that started this assumption of marriage always being between
a man and a woman, was either a jokester, or just unwilling to spend
the time doing some digging to make sure he or she was right. Either
way, I think he or she has made a fool out of a lot of people.
Something I've heard George W. Bush say
is that polls show more Americans are against same-sex marriages than
are for them, and therefore that's a reason to ban them. Right, and
I supposed if we polled the American people asking if the rich should
be taxed more, while lowering everyone else's taxes, that Bush would
do that if it turned out more people approved the idea than disapproved?
I wouldn't hold my breath, and I know my example is silly, but it
is meant to point out how silly his reasoning is. It isn't the job
of the President to win a popularity contest. It's the job of the
President to make sure the American people are free, and to defend
their civil rights. Some times doing that takes hard decisions, which
aren't always popular, but this isn't high school. It's the real world,
and currently same-sex couples are lacking in the freedom and civil
rights department and need the President to step in for them.
The next argument is one the church lady
from the Simpsons loved to say, "What about the children?"
And I agree, what about the gay children and teens? They are the ones
hurt by having same-sex marriages not allowed. What kind of future
can they hope for when the society they live in says they can't legally
bond with the one they'll love, and can't have all the rights that
entails? How are they suppose to feel when they see a loving married
couple (which can include their parents), and know the society they
are in won't allow them to have that kind of happiness? The answers
are bleak and depressed. There is such a stigma in this country about
being gay that allowing same-sex marriages may not erase it, but it
will definitely give hope to gay children and teens that they can
grow up, find someone to love, and get married. It's an American dream,
so why deny them that? As for those who claim allowing same-sex marriages
will make kids gay, grow up. There are many children and teens who
are gay, who have straight parents, and aren't being made straight.
The opposite would be true about same-sex couples raising children.
Their children won't be made gay, and when the children of straight
parents observe a same-sex couple, they won't be made gay either.
The worst that would happen is that the parents would need to explain
to their children what they saw.
The last argument I'm going to address
is perhaps the silliest. It's the one where people claim if same-sex
marriages are allowed, then what? Adult and children marriages? Human
and animal marriages? Things I find completely ludicrous to say. Marriage
is something shared between two consenting adults who love each other.
Gender shouldn't matter. What should matter is that both involved
are of legal age to consent to marriage and have sex, and that both
are human and able to consent to marriage and have sex. In both cases
that is not true. The one thing that might hold some water, is when
people say this could lead to allowing polymorous marriages. While
I really don't see allowing same-sex marriages as opening the door
for polymorous marriages, since it is keeping marriage between a loving
couple, I don't see why those who support polymorous marriages shouldn't
be allowed to try to get marriage changed in that sense. This is America,
the land of the free. Though I would like to point out the last time
marriage was changed in this country to allow interracial couples,
none of the things previously mentioned happened. So why would they
now?