A case for the legalization of same sex marriage in the US.
The potential legalization of same sex marriage is a social hot point right now for American culture, and one can wade into any numerous perspectives on both sides of the issue. There is, however, a right answer. Gay Marriage is absolutely legal and justified and the sooner it is adopted in as many States as possible the better.
At the core of the issue is the definition of marriage. Some call it the monogamous, legal union between a man and a woman. I call it the monogamous, legal union between two people, any two people. To limit the definition of marriage to those of the opposite sex is discriminatory.
Beastiality, Pologamy? Come on.
Some claim that to “open up” the institution of matrimony to gays and lesbians is to run the risk of condoning any manner of things from bestiality to polygamy to rewriting the age of consent. Such matters have their own moral consequence and are merely thrown into the gay marriage conversation to misinform and add some steps to the hysterical morality soap-box. The definition of marriage obviously assumes legal age of consent, even if the word “gay” is in the vicinity. For those worried about bestiality, I know that animals have never given their consent to be sexual partners with any member our species, straight or otherwise. And the last I checked, monogamous union between TWO people is by definition, not polygamous.
The Baby Gate?
Another argument is the view that marriage should be reserved for those of the opposite sex because the purpose of marriage is to produce offspring. By that definition, all those who cannot have children, be it low sperm count, menopause or what have you, should be denied access to marriage. See how silly that is? People who can’t have children get married all the time. It’s absurd for them not to.
Marriage vs Civil Union?
Perhaps the most insidious argument revolves around the fact that gays and lesbians can form “civil unions” which carry all the same or similar legal rights as marriage, depending upon which state you’re in. Why push for the word “marriage” when a legitimate term for a homosexual union already exists?
Consider the racial segregation fight in the Southern States in the sixties. Back then, Blacks and Whites could ride the same bus, Whites up at the front, Blacks at the back. The bus took both groups to the same place, and the seats were more or less the same no matter where you sat, but that’s not the point. To tell someone they can sit “here” but not “there” based on the color of their skin is discrimination, just ask Rosa Parks, and it is the same discrimination as telling someone they can call their monogamous union “this” instead of “that” based on their sexuality.
Please don’t dismiss the argument of “gay marriage” vs. “gay civil union” as mere semantics: it speaks to the fundamentals of liberty and equality. A misstep here will be a complete disembowelment of such founding principles. Gays and straights are different from each other, AND they are also equal. We can be different and equal at the same time. And, all things being equal, we can all get married and call it marriage if we want to. And if a particular church refuses to marry homosexuals, that’s their insular right as a congregation of beliefs. But they don’t reserve some special privileged access to the concept of marriage beyond their own following. Do not segregate based on sexuality.