January 20, 2010

Argument in Favor of Allowing Gay Marriage

First and foremost, this will be a long post. For that, I do apologize.

I read an article today, in the L.A. times, regarding a current trial going on in California on the issue of legalizing gay marriage in the state. Since I feel strongly about this issue, on a rational level, I was compelled to write something about it.

I could use a ton of emotional arguments here, but that's not my usual style. So, I'll be sticking to logic for my end of the debate.

Marriage is (hopefully) a contract between consenting adults. Gay consenting adults are still consenting adults. What possible logical reason is there to deny this right to consenting adults?

I've heard the argument that homosexual relations are biblically unacceptable. I could argue against that, I have, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this entry, so we'll just assume that it is indeed frowned upon by God. And? There are plenty of legal things that are biblically unacceptable; lying, adultery (at least, that's not illegal in CA), sex before marriage, not believing in the bible, rejecting the holy spirit, coveting thy neighbors ass (I mean - why do you think we even have plastic surgery?)etc. etc. etc.

I've heard the argument that marriage is a contract that always needs to include God. Really? Then why does no one protest Atheist, Pagan, Buddhist, etc. weddings? Why is no one getting ticked off with marriages that occur at the hands of a justice of the peace and specifically omit any and all mention of deity?

Besides, honestly, if the sanctity of your marriage is dependent upon ANY other marriage, you're already in far more marital trouble than you think you are. If God can be somehow undeified by two people of the same sex getting married, that's not a terribly powerful deity in the first place. Come on now. Certainly, there are better, more logical, more rational arguments than this?

NO ONE is saying that ANY church or other private organization should be forced to allow or condone ANY ceremony or service that it feels goes against it's belief system. If they were, I'd be the first to jump on the bandwagon, screaming "HELL NO!"

But, our forefathers saw fit to attempt to ensure a seperation of church and state. It's unconstitutional to not make every attempt to follow that wish. So, ANY argument that is based on a spiritual belief system of ANY kind is fundamentally flawed when we're discussing the secular legality of the issue.

If marriage were ONLY allowed within the confines of a spiritual institution, it should absolutely be up to that spiritual institution whether or not to allow ANY type of marriage to take place. But, it's not. We can NOT deny atheists the right to marriage (though a pastor/rabbi/reverend/priest/etc. can refuse to perform the service). And, we can therefore NOT deny any other consenting adults the right to marriage. A justice of the peace can't be basing his secular, government only marriage ceremony on arguments that revolve around whether or not God will cry if that ceremony takes place.

So, what exactly is the "logical" argument for denying rights to any human being, and particularly this specific group of human beings? I have never heard one. It's "unnatural"? How exactly, when we know that there are a multitude of animals that engage in homosexual relations, and human beings are indeed animals? But, again, we're talking consenting adults here, so what does it matter again?

Homosexuality can be "changed"? LOL! Sorry, but no it cannot. A bisexual person who had previously only been with someone of the same sex could certainly decide to stick with only people of the opposite sex. But, that doesn't mean they will suddenly cease to find people of the same sex romantically or sexually attractive. And, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that those who have tried their hardest weren't even able to do that much. And, I say it again, if we are talking about consenting adults who wish to enter into this contract with one another, with all the responsibilities that entails - what difference does it make if they COULD somehow change their orientation?

My opinion on whether or not homosexuality is fine or wrong doesn't matter. Your opinion on whether or not homosexuality is fine or wrong doesn't matter. The issue is - legally, secularly, how can the right to enter into a contract with another consenting adult be denied to any citizen of the United States?

No comments:

Post a Comment