One of the most controversial issues of our time deals with homosexuality and whether or not to legally recognize same-sex marriages. Previously, the California Supreme Court had ruled that same-sex marriages were a constitutional right to be given to those who wanted it; however, on November 4, 2008, California voters voted yes on Proposition 8, which over turned California Supreme Court's ruling, and banned same-sex marriages in the state.
But, is it fair to let voters decide what lifestyles others in society can live? Why is it constitutional to permit a voter who is dead-set against homosexuality decide whether or not two men or two women can engage in a legally honorable marriage?
It is my personal belief that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry and enjoy the same benefits that come with a heterosexual marriage. To me, banning same-sex marriages coincides with the fact that interracial marriages (marriages between blacks and whites for the most part) was once banned in the U.S. Why should the courts and government have any say in what one chooses to do in his/her own personal life? Love knows no limits or boundaries and therefore if one does not agree with homosexuality or same-sex marriages, one has failed to realize that IT IS NOT THEIR LIFE TO LIVE! How will the marriage of Tom and Bob affect your everyday life? IT WON'T! Tom and Bob just want the same rights as Suzie and Jim (i.e. insurance, tax, ownership purposes, etc...).
Opponents of same-sex marriage usually argue that same-sex marriages go against religion or that such marriages will teach children that homosexuality is ok. For one, not all people are Christians, and for that matter, not all people are religious. Christians tend to use the argument that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is reserved for only a man and a woman because "the Bible says so." And while this may be true, the Bible also "says" that one shall not engage in fornication (nor mark thy body with tattoos because the body is "a temple"), and undoubtedly large numbers of "devout Christians" have done so. Furthermore, the Bible says that no one sin shall not be held above another, meaning that no one sin holds greater weight than another. Therefore, the argument of these so-called "devout Christians" is invalid unless they have never sinned in their lives, which is unreasonable to think.
Others believe that the legalization of same-sex marriages will bring children to believe that homosexuality is right. Who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong? Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike will one day have their own judgement days where their actions will be judged as to what was "right" and "wrong" that they did in their lives. The union of same-sex couple will not make children believe that one sexual preference is better than another. NEWSFLASH! Children know what it means to be gay or lesbian and I believe that people are born gay because I do not believe that people would "choose" to be gay if they knew what kind of hate and ridicule they would endure; therefore, if it was their destiny to be gay, then that is what will happen. In addition, gays and lesbians are born from heterosexual couples! You cannot hide homosexuality from anyone- it is blatant in our society and people will inevitably do whatever they want to do.
Although it will take many years, maybe even decades for same-sex marriages to become legalized in states (especially the South aka the "Bible Belt"), it is my hope that one day it will. People need to realize that gays and lesbians are people too and they cannot control the emotions that they are born with or with whom they fall in love. So what if Tom and Bob want to get married? Who is to say that they wouldn't have a more stable and loving marriage than any other heterosexual couple? After all, in this day-and-age more than half of all heterosexual marriages end up in divorce, which destroys the sanctity of marriage, just like some think same-sex marriages will.
-Justine Burke
7 comments:
I completely agree with Justine. It is not at all necessary to ban gay marriage. In fact, that is blatant discrimination. Many States and people do not believe in granting the same marital rights to homosexual couples as heterosesxual couples because of religion. I am also a christian ( who believes homosexuality is wrong), but I do not think it is up to me to judge others. Should we change the traditional working definition to include homosexuals , No. But I do not see anything wrong with granting them the same rights. As Justine said, many christians sin every day, and no one sin is worse than another. Therefore I believe let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Gay marriage should be left up to those who would like to partake in it. Personally I'm not going to marry a woman, nor will I play a role in two other women's marriage. The way I see it is, If i'm not walking in someone else's shoes I can't judge them, so far be it from me to stop Tina and Lisa's love. Maybe the United States should adopt the same attitude as well.
-Jessica Gibbs
Does the term “civil union”, hold any wait? I believe if those involved in a homosexual lifestyle really wanted to share benefits, (i.e. insurance, tax, ownership purposes, joint custody… ect.) they could partake in a civil union! But, that’s not enough; people want to look at marriage as a fluid concept, when it really isn’t. When I think apple, it varies in color, but not in definition. As a Christian, I love all people, just as Christ loves me. And I don’t judge individuals because of their sexual preference. The Bible does say, “He who is without sin cast the first stone”. And being human ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But, society often uses religion as a tool to judge others, and that’s not its intention. I believe faith should be a binding factor, the common denominator, not something used to bring division. But on the issue of Gay marriage, love is a commitment, made between two inididvuals, and why brings the law into it? Marriage is a legally binding agreement, making the personal political.
Determining whether Gay marriage is “ok” or not, is a personal decision. Society can accept the idea, but making a personal decision to believe it or not is up to that individual. Making Gay marriage legal, does signify that homosexuality is “ok,” and I can understand why parents fear the impact of that law on their developing child. God created a man and a woman to be united in order to pro-create. It’s not a coincidence that same-sex individuals are not able to re-produce! There is the continual argument that church and state should be separate. And maybe it should, but it is not. And I don’t think it ever will be, because it is too difficult to separate ones morals from their actions. So, I propose that if Gay couples feel the dire need to be legally united, they can have a civil union. And if they choose not to, the fate of their relationship will always be controlled by others.
I agree with Justine. Same-sex marriage should be recognized as an American right, not an issue up for vote. This matter has close to no life altering or threatening affects on heterosexuals; therefore, it DOES NOT pertain to such people. Though the origins of homosexuality are in question, the personal lives of such people are not up for question. What type of country claims to value individual rights and liberties (including PRIVACY), but allows the personal lives of its people to be dictated by public opinion? The United States of America. This is history repeating itself, paralleling with the past Jim Crow laws against interracial marriages. Bottom line: Rights should never be up for vote.
I agree with the points made in this argument. Homosexual couples should be allowed the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. So many people often claim that the government should be separate from citizen’s interpersonal relationship issues and religious beliefs. Yet these are the same grounds upon which they allow government to control homosexual couples and their rights to marriage.
-Destinee Moore
I think that you have a valid argument, I just feel that when it comes down to gay marriage, it is more of if a person wants to be named as a supporter or not. This is why proposition 8 lost in California because you have a lot of people who just don't care how others live their lives, but don't want to be a supporter in anyway, whether it be because of their morals or religious beliefs, they don't want to support it.
In response to Justine's argument, it is very constitutional to allow one voter who is dead-set against homosexuality to decide whether or not two men and women can get married. It would be unproductive to only allow people who favor a certain topic vote on it. Everyone who votes on a topic may or may not be directly impacted by it. Although gay marriage my not be hurting someone or have very little to do with their lives, the American political system hinges upon the varying opinions and interests of all citizens. I do not disagree with the position that is taken, however the support that Justine proposes would undermine the entire political system.
shaunicie fielder
I don't think it is necessary to ban gay marriage. Marriage is a right that should be given to everyone. And whom you care to share this right with is your business. It falls under the 9th amendment of privacy.
It isn't fair to let voters decide that, such matters should be left to the Supreme Court. I agree witht he writer in that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry and enjoy the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.
Post a Comment