The Debate: Gay Marriage

Okay, let’s do it. Clear the table, I’m gonna give you a topic. Gay marriage. Discuss.

The arguments against it:

  • It’s unnatural and could lead to other unnatural partnerships; as Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum put it while arguing for the constitutionality of an anti-sodomy law, “If the Supreme Court says that you have a right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”
  • The children of gay marriages could be at risk; as hulk theorizes, due to the lack of role models of BOTH genders. Or due to the fact that homosexuality is actually harmful to children, for those who believe that.
  • Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and continuing the human race. Gay people cannot procreate without help, therefore, marriage makes no sense.
  • Marriage is sacred amd homosexuality is wrong.

The arguments for it:

  • Sexual and marital activity between of-age and consenting adults should not be legislated by the government. The United States was founded on principles of self-determination and self-governance, which should extend to one’s private life. There is no evidence that gay sex will naturally progress to incest or bestiality. Most incest, incidentally, is father-daughter and heterosexual.
  • Regarding children: obviously gay couples cannot procreate by themselves. However, not all heterosexual marriages end up producing children, and these marriages are still legal. Furthermore, if more couples want to adopt unwanted children, and if these couples pledge to raise these children in a loving home, why stand in their way? Studies (there have been several) show that while children from gay couples take more than their fair share of teasing at school, they tend to be well-adjusted AND only slightly more likely to be homosexual than the average child raised in a heterosexual household.
  • While marriage is a legal contract, it also provides benefits and protections; among them, tax breaks under the current administration, hospital visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, insurance rights, and so on. Adults who love one another and desire to spend their lives together, regardless of their gender, deserve these rights and protections.
  • If marriage is sacred, (again paraphrasing hulk), then how come Britney Spears can have an 18-hour marriage in Vegas and J.Lo can get married four times in six years? In the interests of keeping marriage as the sacred once-in-a-lifetime entity that it’s supposed to be, why not extend it to couples who love one another and want to stay together, regardless of their genders?

This is just scratching the surface, but that’s my take on some of the arguments I’ve been hearing. I’m biased, of course. Who wants to weigh in?