Gay marriage

Marriage is defined as between a man and woman. President Barack Obama has said on multiple occassions during his political career, including the 2008 presidential election campaign: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."[2] Indeed, marriage, throughout its thousands of years of existence, has only been used to describe the union of a man and woman, toward the general end of starting a family and raising children. To change the definition to include gays would go against thousands of years of history, from which definitions are formed and should be maintained. Marriage can evolve, but only in context of man and woman. One argument in favour of same-sex marriage is that the culture of marriage has changed over the years and that recognizing same-sex marriage is just another change. A common example given is the change in the status of the woman partner, in that marriage is now seen as a union of equals. But that change goes to a collateral feature of marriage, not its essential nature or essence as recognizing same-sex marriage would. In short, these two changes are not analogous; rather, they are fundamentally different in kind."
 
Marriage is mainly for reproduction; can't include gays. Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. [...] To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding." Marriage is not about love, but starting family. Jonathan Rauch, in his recent book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, defines marriage as essentially a legally enforced, long-term relation of mutual aid and support between two sexual partners. Marriage, he says, "is putting one person ahead of all others." According to Rauch, "if marriage means anything at all," it is knowing "that there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line." We can here leave aside how odd this definition will sound to any married couple with young children, partners whose first responsibility is not obviously spousal."
 
Traditions can be made, traditions can be destroyed, traditions can be followed. Just because something is traditional, doesn't mean that we should follow them. During the Middle Ages, bathing and washing was considered sinful and untraditional. Does that mean that we should not bathe and wash just for the sake of tradition? No. Like this, traditions disappear when they make no sense and when we no longer need them. Traditions are made because we need them. We're entering a new age. Let's face it. The rules don't apply anymore, and traditions are rapidly disappearing. Gay marriage should not be banned for tradition. The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons."
 
Gay marriage does not devalue institution of marriage. Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any. Gays strengthen marriage by desiring it. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition."
 
Gay marriage is a fundamental, equal right. Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation. Marriage ban makes gays second class citizens. When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so."
 
Yes, absolutely. Marriage should be about loving, supportive, nurturing relationships, and such relationships are not dependent on gender. Gay marriages will only strengthen and enrich the social concept of marriage.
If any loving relationship should be included in the definition of marriage, then let people marry their pets while we're at it. Then my kitten could qualify for healthcare benefits and I could get better tax breaks. It should be apparent that legalization of gay marriages is more about finances than it is about acknowledgement. Otherwise, why would gay people want to change the way the word marriage is defined?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top