Homosexuality and homosexuals are
not the same. One word represents a practice – a lifestyle.
The other represents our friends and loved ones, people that surround
us every day. Regardless of one’s opinion regarding homosexuality,
one has no reason to base a judgment of character upon that facet
alone.
I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I do not hate gay people.
I react to them the way I would react to anyone who does something
that I do not think is right. I have had many friends who have done
certain things which I believed to be wrong. I wished they wouldn’t,
and even urged them not to, but they were still my friends. I cared
about them and they knew it. It is vital in a normal, healthy life
to differentiate what a person does from who the person is. I think
my most important point is that such a feeling is possible –
even necessary.
That said, I wish to address the renewed controversy over the legalization
of same-sex marriage.
Marriage itself is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman.
It is not the combination of “two people who love each other,”
or a “symbol of commitment between two people.” Indeed,
love itself is not even referenced in this definition. It also does
not allow easily for an interpretation that would include the uniting
of every pairing of people in love.
The institution of marriage is intended for two main purposes: to
create and encourage lifelong companionship, and to conceive and
raise children in a family setting. Parents may have children and
raise them well, and those offspring in turn will have children
of their own. Thus, this one family unit may continue indefinitely,
through their genes as well as their parental influence. Not all
marriages fulfill these purposes completely, but these are the ultimate
objectives.
Another controversial idea is that boys and girls are different.
They have different tendencies and strengths and weaknesses. They
have distinct roles in the home as parents. When one parent is missing,
there are developmental consequences, as has become so apparent
in the prevalence of the single-parent family and the social problems
that have arisen as a result. By definition, even the most idyllic
family with same-sex parents will be missing the influence of a
father or mother. Such a family cannot reach the same potential
as its more traditional counterpart.
As a conservative, it is against my nature to condone a more involved,
intrusive government in our personal lives. However, rather than
see this as an issue of an oppressed race being denied human rights,
I see it as the legal disapproval of an improper practice. Something
that is wrong does not need to be protected.
There are those with a genetic or psychological tendency for alcoholism
or other disagreeable habits. But if they give in to their inclinations,
their behaviors are not guarded and accepted in the name of equality
and tolerance. Their lifestyles are not accommodated by society
as a permissible alternative.
I do not mean to compare the social destructiveness of substance
abuse to homosexuality, but to illustrate the fact that just because
good people do something doesn’t mean it must be accepted
or defended by law.
There are those in our society that practice some very irregular
behaviors, indeed. But they do not necessarily have a natural right
to all of the privileges that they believe they should have. Neither
does a large number of people doing something legitimize it, even
if they believe in it very strongly. A behavior’s very existence
cannot guarantee it unconditional legal and social validation.
People’s personal lives are private and should remain so.
But same-sex marriage must not be allowed to redefine marriage and
the family into something altogether different and socially detrimental. |
|
Although many people who oppose legal marriage
for same-sex partners insist their views are not founded in prejudice,
that the simple fact that they would refuse the rights granted all
other citizens in the United States attests to the discrimination
that is harbored by these people.
The first thing I have to say to these people is regarding “holy
matrimony.” The “holy” half can not affect the decision
to deny gay couples the right to marry. This nation demands a separation
of church and state. Many religions have become accepting of gay unions
and those that continue to argue that such relationships are “against
God” can refuse to conduct religious ceremonies.
However, marriage is a legal contract that guarantees certain rights
and protection to couples. By denying a couple the right to marry,
the state also denies them the 170 to 350 state laws that apply to
married partners such as automatic inheritance, bereavement leave,
child custody, and even visitation rights for a partner in a hospital
or prison.
Refusing the legal marriage strips them of numerous other rights,
thereby denoting them as second-class citizens – not worthy
of the civil liberties enjoyed by others.
The suggestion that granting same-sex couples marriage licenses will
somehow contribute to the disintegration of the institution is absurd.
Marriage itself is a struggling idea. Every couple that chooses to
enter a marriage has a higher chance of breaking that contract than
of reaching the “death do us part” part. More than half
of American households are not founded by married partners. A same-sex
partnership has as much of a chance of success as any other union.
By “traditional” union, I mean the partnership of a man
and a woman. But there is nothing really traditional about it. Marriage
laws have been subject to change throughout history. Interracial couples
were denied the right to marry until 1969. Before the law changed,
interracial marriage was not only prohibited, but was a punishable
offense complete with prison time in some states. Marriage laws do
change.
The acceptance of legal marriage for same-sex couples would also not
be a new idea. John Boswell addressed the history of such unions;
many openly married, in his book, “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern
Europe.”
Marriage is intended to encourage citizens to procreate so that little
citizens can be made. I went to high school and know that marriage
is not a necessary element in the creation of a child. Many gay couples
choose to have children using other methods, adopt, or enter a relationship
with a child from a previous encounter. Gay couples can be parents
too. Just as many couples consisting of a man and a woman choose not
to have children.
Furthermore, no study conducted has ever provided evidence that children
raised by same-sex partners suffer as a result of their upbringing.
However, studies have been conducted that show these children to be
well-adjusted. Same-sex couples are capable of parenting as well as
others.
A family should be founded on love, mutual respect and support. If
two gay men or two lesbians find love and wish to build a family,
society should welcome the union as it would any other. To deny a
couple the right to legally be called a family is not only a denial
of civil liberties granted all other citizens, but any argument to
the contrary is founded in prejudice.
Same-sex couples will undoubtedly face discrimination at some point.
But the government should stop encouraging this discrimination to
continue by refusing the rights granted others.
Everyone has the right to love who they want and solidify that love
with a family and marriage. |
