gay marriage
...stability, and growth as any heterosexual family. Families undeserving of these burdens. 10. Loss of rights and benefits aside, civil unions lack one important thing from marriages, something that will never be able to be “duplicated”: the status a marriage brings. As one couple said, “When he said those words [Will you marry me?] we understood marriage was not really a possibility for us. But nobody says 'would you be my registered domestic partner.' It doesn't have the same ring.” 11. As marriage has been an institution resembling love and commitment, and generally respected as being the ultimate level a couple can achieve, same sex couples with the same commitments and love a heterosexual couple has do not enjoy the status a marriage can bring. 12. As Sheila Kuehl said in an article for The Advocate, “[When we received balloons, cards, and congratulations for the weddings] we saw how marriage allows society to recognize our equality. People know what to do when you get married. They rejoice. They congratulate.” 13. Marriages are symbols in our country for, “We love each other, and we’re ready to spend the rest of our lives together come what may.” Instead of being able to make this explicit announcement to loved ones and the public, gay couples can say “We love each other, but we are not allowed to show it to the fullest extent.” Civil unions do not grant the same recognition and status marriages give heterosexual couples. TRANSITION: Marriages are not the same as civil unions, they provide benefits and rights and status that nothing else is able to provide. So why haven’t we legalized gay marriages? II. Sociological and economic arguments are made against gay marriage. A. Sociological concepts and ideas about family structure are commonly used to argue against gay marriages. 1. When Hawaii began to consider legalizing gay marriage and later when Vermont began its debate, one of the prime points used by the opponents was that marriage is primarily considered a method to generate procreation and child rearing – something gay marriage would obviously not allow, or at least as easily. a) If marriage is primarily considered a method for procreation and child rearing, and this is why it is denied to an active portion of the population, why haven’t we denied marriage to heterosexual barren couples? Or couples who do not wish to have children? Denying marriage rights to homosexuals because children are not as apparent a possibility, but granting them to heterosexual couples where there is no possibility for children, is a horrible double standard. b) Also, what is to say a gay couple cannot produce children? Adoption laws for gay couples are still stringent, but it is possible for gay couples to adopt. Surrogacy is also a viable option for gay couples looking for children. And lesbian couples who want children can have a child naturally through artificial insemination. When it is certainly possible for a gay couple to have children and raise a family, how can it be ok to say that they can’t be married because they can’t have children? 2. When it becomes recognized that gay couples are just as capable of having children in their lives, many people express concern over the capabilities of the couples parenting skills. These skills are then brought into question further when lawmakers consider legalizing gay marriages, making it a concern when looking at this issue. a) One argument is that a child needs both male and female influence in their lives for a healthy life. All right, if that’s the case let’s invalidate single parent families with a deadbeat dad or mom. Of course that won’t happen. Instead these families will be celebrated for their strength and perseverance. Influences can be found outside of the two parents, whether it come from other family, friends, or youth organizations. As long as a child has positive role models, male or female, it is much more likely for them to lead healthy lives than having sub-par male and female influences. b) A second concern is that gay parents will “rub off” on their children, making them gay. I would be more worried about the parent who burglarizes or assaults and still is able to be a presence in his/her child’s life. If the parent does not harm their own children, then there is no law requiring children to be taken away. And even if this concern was valid, parents are not the only influence in their child’s life. Certainly a large one, but society as a whole, friends, school, and many other factors shape a person. B. The economy plays a factor in the debate over gay marriage as well. 1. According to “The Limits to Union: Same Sex Marriage and the Politics of Civil Rights”, married couples enjoy tax benefits while co-habitating couples pay taxes as separate individuals. Also that the rise in marriages would cause a rise in court battles over child custody, divorces, and legislation rising court costs. Overall having the effect of less tax income for the government, and higher costs, raising taxes. 1. What is not recognized is the couples who would be considered married by any standard other than legal, are already paying taxes as individuals. They are paying higher taxes when they otherwise would not need to. In essence they’ve paid their dues already. 2. Heterosexual couples express the concern that if gay couples were allowed to marry, and tax income would decrease, their taxes would increase. With the homosexual population being at a decided, important minority of 4.2 percent, there would not be a large noticeable difference to heterosexual couples. 2. The spouse of a married person is also privileged to many corporate insurance coverage and benefits such as pensions, as pointed out in the New York Times article, “Single and Paying for It.” If gay marriage was to occur, the number of spouses would increase raising the corporate costs of insurance and pension payments. 1. While the decision is certainly up to the corporation if same sex partners will be included in their policies, with federal legislation legalizing gay marriage it would make these benefits mandatory. 2. If a corporation does recognize same sex couples, some might exploit this using the benefits even though if they were allowed to be married, they wouldn’t be. Legalizing gay marriage would filter out these couples not ready for marriage, thereby unable to enjoy the benefits of the corporate policies, from the couples who are truly committed, willing to be married. INTERNAL SUMMARY: I told you about civil unions and why they are not equal to marriage and I’ve shown why a couple of the arguments opponents employ are shaky. Finally I want to show why the primary argument against same sex marriage is inappropriate. IV. At the forefront of this debate is religion. It is the argument most commonly seen coming from opponents. A. In the United States, the most vocal religious opposition comes from Christian based faiths. B. Quoting the Bible, these faith-based organizations and views argue against homosexuality. C. Most often heard is Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” and Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” and Isaiah 3:9, “The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves”. D. While it is a church’s prerogative to institute rules and regulations based on their own doctrine, here the Christian churches, it is inappropriate to use this doctrine in our national politics – using it to argue against national policies affording homosexuals marriage. E. Laws and legislations regarding gay marriage are often defended with religious intentions and thereby are inappropriate defenses for government legislation. F. In his call for the Marriage Protection Act (a federal amendment defining marriage between man and woman) on February 24 2004, President Bush said, “The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.” President Bush used this statement to support his reasons for amending the constitution with his act, though the constitution is clearly interpreted as protecting a separation from church and state. Supporting the Marriage Protection Act using “religious faith” is in violation of this universal interpretation, thereby invalidating the amendment. G. Numerous religious scholars agree that the Bible should not be taken literally for a healthy society to prosper. It’s meanings and interpretations have changed over the centuries, and should continue to change. In this same manner, the concept of marriage should not remain stagnant. In an interview with The Advocate about his state’s current debates over gay marriages, gay Rhode Island majority leader Gordon Fox said, “It’s about challenging this notion that marriage is some sort of stag...