The
most common argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is, “If two people
love each other, why are they not allowed to get married?” While there
are many reasons for and against legalizing same-sex marriage, the
government should not make its decision based on the argument that people who love each other should be able to get married.
If
we define marriage as two people committing to each other, then gay
marriage is completely legal and practiced. There is nothing stopping
two people of any gender who love each other from committing to each
other, living together, and having a family together. But what people
are pushing for is government sanctioned marriage, where the union of
two people would be recognized and rewarded by the government. That is
the distinction most people don’t understand.
We need to understand why the government sanctions traditional
marriage. It is not because a man and a woman love each other. The
government does not care if two people love each other or not.
The whole argument about gay marriage is really not about love or equal
rights. It’s about what benefits the government. The government
supports traditional marriage because traditional marriage benefits it. The government
recognizes traditional marriage because it produces children and is the
most favorable structure for raising future citizens. Studies show that
the best environment for children is an intact, traditional family.
Children who grow up in such an environment are much more likely to be profitable for the government when they grow up, and therefore, the
government promotes the thing that would produce such citizens. While
there are certainly many families with same-sex parents who have the
same results, and many traditional families who do not have the same
results, the government will go with what is most consistent. Traditional
marriage receives government benefits because it benefits the
government. While no one is contesting that one person’s love is not
equal to another person’s love, in the eyes of the government,
traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are not equal because one
produces future citizens and the other does not. (Although there are
always exceptions to every rule.)
I beg to differ.
ReplyDeleteForgive me for the brevity of this message. I could potentially write for pages on this one.
The most common argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is indeed the fact that two people regardless of gender and sexual orientation/preference should be allowed to marry each other as much as the “traditional” couple next door. The reason why they are not allowed can be explained in more ways than one. Unfortunately, I do not believe your argument is remotely one. The closest justification you may be looking for is the fact that our politicians are so obsessed with winning elections that they can’t give up the idea that church and state are separate, and they always have been. We do not go by “heavenly” values, we have never done so! We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation because we know how to squash and silence those who don’t serve our interests (U.S. Corollary is a good start should you wish to explore). And we do not do it in the name of anyone but us!
I do not agree that the government’s motivation to not support or legalize gay marriage is because it believes in the superiority of marriages between opposite sex as opposed to same sex. Given the rate of divorce and children born off wedlock, it would be comical to believe that children born from tumultuous environment are better off just because their parents are opposite sex. What shapes a human being may begin in the household. However, that is only part of the effort. Remember, “It takes a village” to raise a child. It is the schools, the elders, relatives, friends and the environment that shapes a child. Lack there of is part of the cause for many of our social issues in America (obviously this is true for the rest of the world as well). If the government knows anything, it should know this. The most recent US census reports on divorce are a testimony to that. There were half as much divorces for all the marriages that took place in 2009. Gay couples or any couple for that matter is as much capable as anyone else in raising responsible, exemplary citizens that will serve the country well for generations to come. The only requirement is that one be equipped with the courage and know how that is necessary in raising an offspring.
Please understand that there are exemplary citizens that were born of a broken home. Our very President is an example. A mother, a stepfather and maternal grand parents raised him. Sure none were gay (as far as we know). I can list examples of the opposite scenario on and on. All I need to do is check any criminal’s prison records. I am very certain that many came from wonderful, loving, straight parents. I do not even want to venture to good or bad parents who raised a homosexual with a success story. Does it mean the government does not want those? How about those who defended their country and did so with honor and dignity? Should we deny them equal rights because they may not raise as good a citizen as the government requires it?
So should the government punish married, straight couples whose child committed a crime because they did not “raise him or her right”? And reward those who “did”? Your message does seem to have ignored practically all avenues of measure to a conclusion that is nothing short of alarming.
The government is (or should be) in the business of providing the infrastructure and necessary tools to help us raise exemplary citizens of the future. The government is NOT in the business of determining which kind of parents or people raise better people. It is not in the business of profiling based on gender or looks or race. Like many of my peers, I would like to believe America has moved on. So should those who came up with this sad, meaningless and one-dimensional theory.