The Case for Gay Marriage

Yes, gay marriage is a very hotly debated subject in America these days, especially with it becoming legal in California earlier this year. I am in full support of the legalization of gay marriage, for the fundamental reason that I believe that people should be allowed to act in a manner which they desire so long as they do not impede on the rights of anyone else. The United States national government exists for the purpose of protecting our rights, as our founding fathers wrote down in the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

As we can see from the very beginning of our nation the founding fathers latched on to the principles first championed by John Lock who argued that human beings have rights, and among these are life, liberty, and property, and that it is the goal of governments to protect those rights.

I simply put forth that gay marriage does not, in any way shape or form, impede on the rights of anyone else and affects no one but those willingly participating in it, and therefore it is unreasonable for a free society to outlaw it. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults and the state as well as a symbolic gesture of showing ones lasting love for another human being. I see no reason to exclude gays from marriage besides simple bigotry and misunderstanding.

I simply do not believe that any of the arguments I’ve ever heard against gay marriage are really valid. I’ve heard a lot, but the ones I hear the most seem to come more from emotion then anything else. Why is gay marriage such a bad thing? If two men and two women are allowed to marry and enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, while not being treated differently then straight couples? Is it really so wrong? I don’t see any real argument to use against two loving individuals getting married, and if there aren’t any valid arguments against it, then shouldn’t it be allowed? At least grant me this before going on, if you can’t come up with a valid, logical, non emotional and non religious argument against an action, shouldn’t that action be allowed? Especially if we’re talking about equal treatment for minority groups?

I know I’ll take some heat from this (I’m kind of asking for it, aren’t I) being a Christian and being for gay marriage, but I truly do believe that my religious views and my political views can, and should, be separated from each other. Once I start using my own personal religious beliefs to force myself on others, not only am I violating the very principles on which this country was founded, but I am also violating the principles of Christianity itself. I don’t believe God ever intended for his message to be used by his followers to propel their own personal political philosophies. Wow are so many believers willing to use His name to advance their goals? Not only does it seem un-American to me, it seems very unchristian to me as well. I’m not saying that your own beliefs can’t guide you or give you direction in your life, but the second you wish to control the lives of others and use religious teachings to do so you have crossed a fine line between government and religion that should never be crossed.

Below are a few of the most popular arguments that I’ve heard against gay marriage that I will try my best to discredit.

1. The slippery slope theory.

This argument is the first to come out when from someone is opposed to gay marriage. The argument simply states that if homosexuals were allowed to marry then any form of marriage, from children marrying adults to adults marrying animals, must also be allowed. This argument may sound correct at first, but fundamentally it undercuts itself in a way most people don’t even realize. To argue the slippery slope theory one must first acknowledge that people have a legal and legitimate right to fairness under the law, and that what legally applies to one person or group of people must also, in all fairness, apply to all other people. The slippery slope theory is not a valid argument against gay marriage, what it really is, is an argument against ALL state sanctioned marriage. If we are to believe that allowing gay marriage means we also have to observe the right to marry animals, what rational is there to claim that heterosexual marriage doesn’t automatically mean we must also recognize homosexual marriage? It defeats itself; either you must acknowledge that not allowing homosexuals to marry is wrong because it flies in the face of simple fairness, or you must admit that no one has the right to the privileges of marriage.

Plus the argument is simply ludicrous. No animal on this planet is capable of rational thought and free will, and therefore they are incapable of entering into a marriage with a human being. No creature other then human beings can stand in front of a pulpit and say “I do” or sign a marriage license to consent to a marriage. Animals also, under constitutional law, have no recognized rights, so to say that their rights would be violated would be absurd to say the least. Likewise marriage to minors would also be wrong for a host of reasons, but that is another topic for another day. I’ll try to stick to the topic on hand here.

BTW; I do not oppose polygamy either. Polygamy should be every bit as legal as any other sort of marriage. 

2. The Problems with Raising Children.

A) Homosexual households would raise homosexual children. Even if there were a shred of evidence to support this, even if the facts that EVERY gay person on this planet was the offspring of a straight couple, even if I were to accept this as fact, I ask you, so what? People seem to think that this might lead to depopulation of our nation, but I highly doubt that heterosexual relationships would end or even decrease if this were the case, so there really is no problem.

But I don’t accept the premise of this argument. All gay people on this planet are born to straight couples, and almost all were raised by heterosexual parents. If children raised by heterosexual parents can turn out gay, why is it then a forgone conclusion that children raised in homosexual households would be gay? There is no real reason to believe this.

B) Marriage is about having children. This argument states that since the primary purpose of marriage is to have and raise children, and because homosexuals cannot have children of their own, a homosexual marriage serves no purpose to the state and therefore should not be recognized.

-Premise A, marriage is about having and raising children.

-Premise B, homosexuals cannot have children.

-Conclusion, homosexuals cannot marry.

Premise A is a complete falsehood. I defy you to show me any marriage law which states that the primary purpose of marriage is to have and raise children. Even if this premise were true then there are a lot of heterosexual couples being married who, under this form of logic, have no right to marriage. Infertile couples who biologically cannot have children, or couples who chose not to have children, do not serve this supposed primary function of marriage, should we not recognize their right to marriage? Should we demonstrate, lead marches, and purpose constitutional amendments to stop these people from defiling the sanctity of marriage? Somehow I doubt that would garner much support.

Premise B is only half true. Lesbian couples can have children, so that argument goes right out the window. So under this argument we should allow lesbians to wed, but not gays, but that seems a bit unfair.

But the scary thing about this argument is that, if the state can really state the marriage is all about having children and those who cannot don’t have the right to marriage, then the state can also force provisions onto married couples to ensure that their investment in marriage provides some returns. No using birth controls or condoms, sex only to have children, etc. THIS is a slippery slope I’m afraid of.

3. Marriage is a holey sacrament ordained by God and is the business of the church.

This may be so, but since this nation is built on the principle of separation of church and state you cannot use religious reasons to outlaw something. You can’t say to someone they can’t do something because your God said so, you need to use a political and legal reason, not a religious one. As for marriage being the business of the church, that might be so, and states shouldn’t give any privileges to married couples, heterosexual or no, but since it presently IS in the business of marriage it must be fair in allowing homosexuals to marry as well. Sorry, but marriage is a political matter in this country, not merely a religious one.

4. Churches may be forced to hold gay marriages against their will.

I can understand the fear of this, I really do, but there is no reason to believe that just because gay marriage would be legal means that your church will be forced to hold one. But if that does become the case, sign me up to stop it. Churches have the right to hold marriage ceremonies for anyone and to deny doing so for anyone. Homosexual couples can find plenty of churches that will marry them without forcing themselves on those that won’t, and there is also the option of a justice of the peace.

5. Its unnatural.

First off, I will admit that I don’t know what makes a person gay, but from what I’ve read and seen the idea that homosexuality is a choice is most likely false. Why would a straight person, who likes women, wake up one day and just decide to like men? I can’t imagine the thought process of such a person.  A naturally heterosexual person just deciding one day their going to sleep with another member of the same sex? That just doesn’t make ANY sense at all. Again, I’m not a scientist, I don’t know for sure, but it’s far more likely that homosexuality is natural, and not chosen.

Secondly, even if homosexuality WAS a chose and NOT natural, what difference does that make? We do lots of things that are unnatural and we don’t blink an eye at it. You think a human being flying in the sky in a giant tube is natural? You think taking pain medications to stop arthritis is natural? You think computers pop out of nature? No, yet you still use one. What difference does it make if it’s natural or not?

6. It would ruin the sanctity of marriage.

How? How is allowing a loving couple who just happen to be of the same sex to marry one another an attack on traditional marriage? Your marriage license won’t be revoked; your rights to do as you please won’t be infringed upon, what’s the problem? Does a 50% divorce rate not ruin the sanctity of marriage? I don’t see anybody advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce.

No matter how you swing it gay marriage is not in any way wrong from a legal standpoint. I’ve asked people who are against the idea a million times who’s rights are violated by two people of the same sex getting married, and most always come out with the same predictable answers, which always boil down to, A) It’s disgusting, or B) God doesn’t like it.  Neither or those beliefs are reason enough to outlaw something, to do that you must show that someone’s rights are violated by the act, and in this case you cannot. If you truly believe in a free society then you must also believe in gay marriage.