The U.S Government blog A Better Government has an entry titled "Blog Stage 5" in which the author, Sean, discusses her support for same sex marriage. In this entry I contradict her position and will argue against same sex marriage.
Marriage by itself is a very emotional and complicated subject to talk about. It often times brings out sides of people that we did not know existed and can easily get out of hand. When combined with the topic of homosexuality, it is far too easy to get sidetracked on the rails of underlying social and moral opinions and diverge from the core topic: the marriage by choice, either civil, religious or both of two individuals of the same sex.
Right off the start, Sean makes a very good statement. Every person has free will. However, with every action there are consequences. While it is true that a person is free to have a relationship (be it of friendship or more) with whomever he or she pleases, I disagree that it has to reach the extent of considering marriage.
From personal experience, I have great relationships with both female and male individuals from all over the world. I have male friends who have gone beyond the bounds of friendship and I can proudly state that I love them and would do anything for them. We have shared rooms together on travels with only one bed, we have shared drinks together to save money, and we have even showered together in public gym showers. Personality wise, they are some of the best individuals I know. Any of them are always available to listen about my issues and provide feedback, they will go shopping with me if I so ask, they may even sacrifice their dignity to help me out in times of need. However, not once have I nor any of them ever thought of marriage between us. Not even secretly. Will my opinion change just like the way we embrace changes in technology? No. I guess my mental house did not come with closets.
Why I don't want to make out with them when other people might is irrelevant to this topic.
Marriage, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." I however, in addition to that believe that marriage is a commitment that is made by both partners to each other for the betterment of themselves, their families and by extension the human race. For this reason, it is very well within the power of Government to not only uphold the institution of marriage but enforce it on the population.
Claims arguing that section one of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States protect same sex marriage shows a lack of understanding both of the scope of the amendment and the views and values of that period in time. Also, whether or not the same government or state legislatures have passed silly laws by our modern standards in the past is irrelevant to this topic. There are hundreds of pages detailing the decision that backed each of those laws which at the time were sound for lawmakers.
From a strict physiological point of view, regardless of evolution or creation beliefs, a male human being has a number of mechanisms whose sole purpose is to facilitate the interaction between him and the corresponding mechanisms in the female counterpart. Part of these mechanisms include specialized organs to reproduce, thus ensuring continued survival as a species.
Due to this incompatibility, married individuals of the same sex have to rely on a person of the opposite sex for procreation. Thus violating their commitment to each other and promoting child birth for adoption in the rest of the population.
I am left at a loss at trying to understand why two people of the same sex would seek marriage. Thus I believe there are no clear justifications for it.
This topic is not a new iteration of Loving v. Virginia, because there are many points to support that nothing productive comes out of homosexual marriages for society. So perhaps we should not be so quick to dismiss the opinions and decisions of our forefathers just because they don't coincide with what we want.
No comments:
Post a Comment