On October 10, 2008 California voters passed Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage (SSM). The issue of SSM has been controversial throughout America, most surprisingly in California. Gay marriage has been denied, invoked, and revoked all within the last eight years. SSM is becoming more and more insatiable. The question of whether or not gay marriage should be legalized is being asked to and by teenagers, younger than previous generations. In most cases, SSM has been banned and couples in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) community have been deprived of simple social equality.
Most judicial cases require the prosecution to provide information that proves their case, however in the debate over same-sex marriage the question shouldn’t be, “Why,” but rather, “Why not? ” There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be denied. “Homosexuality is a sin. ” A claim often made by religious antagonist of SSM. True, most religions, primarily Christian and Catholicism, see homosexuality as a sin (Messerli). They base their prejudice on personal and religious beliefs. They fail to realize that the country was founded on the idea that ruling on the basis of personal and religious beliefs to result in majority tyranny.
While the term “separation of church and state never actually appear in the U. S. Constitution (Mount), the First Amendment clearly erected a “wall of separation” (qtd. in Mount), stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (qtd. in Mount). This means that Congress cannot pass laws that benefit religion. In other words, religion should have no part in making laws. Therefore, voting on the proposal of SSM on the basis of religious beliefs should be dismayed.
Since religion seems to be the backbone of the argument against gay marriage, it should be pointed out that not all Christians are against it. In fact, pro-gay Christians profess the common Scriptures used to attack homosexuality are falsely interpreted. For example, two of the most common Scriptures used are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lay with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. ” However, Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern culture did not view homosexuality in the same way we do in modern times.
The occurrence of male anal intercourse was generally out of humiliation, revenge, or subjection, not out of lust (qtd. in Myers & Scanzoni, 88). So the idea that homosexuality in the form of lust is an abomination is not confirmed by Scripture and should not be used out of context. Ultimately, religious doubters are concerned more so of Holy Matrimony and not marriage. Holy Matrimony is the state of being religiously bonded together through marriage. They keyword within this definition is marriage. Matrimony itself is not marriage, but a manifesto of it.
Marriage is 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. So, legalizing gay marriage will not change the definition of Holy Matrimony, or even marriage itself. Holy Matrimony will remain untouched, but the barriers of marriage will be removed. (Woflson, 190). There fore, voting on the idea to save marriage is skewed by a uninformed definition of “marriage”, providing a conclusive reason why voting on personal and religious beliefs should be omitted.
Furthermore, if marriage should be portrayed literally as in the Bible, it would be more than homosexuals being denied the right to do so. In Genesis 29:17-28, marriage is the union between one man and one or more women, so if one argues against SSM because the Bible said so, the Bible also advocates polygamy. You can’t pick and choose parts of the Bible. In addition, Deuteronomy 22:13 states that a marriage is only valid if the wife is a virgin. If she isn’t a virgin she shall be executed. Also, interfaith marriages are nullified.
Finally, since no law of man can trump the laws of God, divorce would be illegal, and if a married man dies his brother must marry his sister-in-law (Wolfson, 120). “Gay couples can’t produce children like straight couples can. That’s why gays are unnatural and just plain wrong. ” Another justification used for the denial of SSM. While it’s true, biologically homosexual couples cannot produce offspring of their own together, are babies the only reason people get married? Because if the production of babies is the major reason for a couple to be married, then there already flaws in this argument.
What about infertile couples? Or even elderly couples? If neither of these two types of couples can reproduce than is it only fair that they be lumped together with homosexuals and not be allowed to wed? Furthermore, heterosexual couples can be married and choose not to procreate, and homosexual couples can be or can choose to artificially inseminate to procreate (Myers & Scanzoni, 120-121). And biologically speaking, homosexual actually occurs quite frequently among animals. In fact, “homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom… homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species. (“1,500 Animal Species”).
In case you were wondering, human beings are classified as animals (Lee). When it comes to social issues, many people bring up the raising of children by same-sex couples and the apparent predetermined sexual orientation of these children. Many people believe that a traditional family is required to raise a productive member in society. Really? So single-parent or foster families cannot raise children to properly function in society as adults? While it is proven that two parental figures is beneficial for the child, the two figures can be of the same sex (Wolfson, 89).
In the end, the child’s well-being is dependent on the quality of the parenting, not the sexual orientation of the parents (Wolfson, 88, 94). People can widely be uninformed about sexual orientation and how it comes about. Many assume gay couples will raise gay children. On the flip side, straight parents only raise straight children, right? While science hasn’t fully figured out what determines sexuality, it seems evident that it is neither a choice nor a result of a role model. In other words, a married straight couple can raise a gay child just as easily as a gay couple can raise a straight child (Wolfson, 98).
The truth of the matter is, straight parents cannot or do not know how to deal with their child being gay (Cooper). The matter at hand shouldn’t be what the results of same-sex couple parenting is, we should focus on the message we are sending to children. By bashing gay couples and how bad it is for them to raise children, we place into childrens’ heads the emphasis of homosexuality being unacceptable. By discriminating against homosexual equality, we place into the minds of our youth that it is unacceptable to be that way (Wolfson 99).
So, in the chance a homosexual child is being raised by a family so adamant against homosexuality, they may feel confused and ashamed of the way they are. Also consider the privileges being denied to same-sex couples. They cannot take family leave, receive inheritance after death, make hospital visitations, may be denied property and insurance, mutual retirement coverages, and cannot file joint tax returns (Wolfson, 195-196). Not to mention just a little piece of paper saying that the government recognizes them as a union of two committed people.
My personal solution is the following: if you are a man who’s against men marrying each other, don’t marry another man. The allowance of SSM will not effect traditional marriage in any way, so why get so worked up about it? It’s funny how people can get so excited about the denial of couples to marry. Especially when there is no reason why the couples shouldn’t wed. There’s a song called “Married” form the musical Cabaret. In it, Herr Schultz sings, “How the world can change, it can change like that. Due to one little word: ‘Married’. ”