In Favor of Same Sex Marriage

¶ … Same Sex Marriage: Refuting the Opposition

While a majority of Americans enthusiastically support equal rights for all citizens including homosexuals, few support same sex marriage (Bidstrup, 2004). Despite this same sex marriage is a right that should be provided to same sex couples as any other government benefits. Same sex couples deserve equal protection under the law just as any other couple would. This paper will argue in favor of same sex marriage, by presenting counter arguments to same sex marriage and refuting them.

Those opposed to legalizing same sex marriages argue "on the basis of plurality" (Pew Forum, 2005). A majority of opponents suggest their opposition is based purely on subjective distaste or opposition to the idea (roughly 35%) (Pew Forum, 2005). This is not adequate basis however to design a constitutional amendment barring same sex marriage. Under the constitution all citizens are afforded their right to equal protection under the law and certain freedoms. This includes the right to the sacrament of marriage. The notion that anything should be outlawed based purely on subjective reasoning is more autocratic or tyrannical in nature than democratic, and democracy forms the foundation under this country thrives each day. Most of the subjective opinions that dictate opposition to same sex marriage are not based on logical premise. This is supported by multiple studies suggesting college graduates are more likely to favor same sex marriage than seniors, and more than twice as likely to support same sex marriage than "less educated counterparts" by as much as 20% (Pew Forum, 2005).

Many opponents fear gay marriage will have a negative impact on the "traditional family structure" hence express their opposition. Many fear that such marriages would "Undermine the traditional American family," as much as 76% of those that oppose gay marriage (Pew Forum, 2005). Other reasons include gay marriage goes against personal religious beliefs (roughly 82%) (Pew Forum, 2005) again not a reason to support opposition. The constitution again protects the rights of citizens and their religious beliefs. While opponents may not support same sex marriage based on personal religious beliefs, there are an equal number of gay citizens that support marriage based on their beliefs. One cannot assume that certain Christian morals or other fundamentalist principles are more important than the beliefs of gay citizens. Every community member has the right to express their religious beliefs in the democracy in which we live. Further biblical moralisms do not dictate the law in America; the first amendment of the constitution very clearly does not support rules on anyone based on religion (Bidstrup, 2004). Many religions throughout the world in fact support homosexuality and celebrate the unions between gay partners freely; thus those practicing these religions should find their rights infringed upon, a constitutional no (Bidstrup, 2004).

Many opposed to same sex marriages argue that gay couples aren't capable of raising children correctly. Yet despite this a majority of those who oppose gay marriage do not believe gay parents are unfit and most believe gay parents would make good couples (Pew Forum, 2005). These beliefs are contradictory at best. There are many unfit parents in society today; many people 'allowed' to parent are much less capable of doing so than same sex couples committed to one another. Multiple scientific studies support gay parenting and suggest that children raised in gay families are just as likely to thrive and realize their ambitions later in life than children from heterosexual families (Herek, 1991).

Some opponents argue that marriage is for procreating and continuing the species (Bidstrup, 2004). If this were the case however, severe limitations must be imposed on marriage. Infertile couples for example, should not be allowed to marry. Nor should couples who express no desire to have children. Older couples who have reached the post menopausal age should also be forbidden from marriage (Bidstrup, 2004). This argument is not based on sound logic and fails to provide ample evidence why same sex marriages should not be allowed. Marriage is not based on continuance of the species but rather commitment and devotion to one another. This many same sex couples have in abundance. The other side of this is many homosexual couples can freely adopt and raise families, contributing to the well being of society and providing homes for children that might not otherwise enjoy a loving and compassionate family life. Procreation is merely a "secondary function" not the primary reason for marriage (Bidstrup, 2004). Thus this argument is completely invalid.

Yet another far fetched argument in opposition of gay marriage is that legalizing same sex marriages will result in chaos and legalization of abominable practices including bestiality or incest (Bidstrup, 2004). This is a fallacy "calculated to create fear" among those that are ignorant (Bidstrup, 2004). Same sex marriages are not in the same category as bestiality or incest, behaviors that are clearly harmful and devastating. Opponents should also note that there are many less reputable citizens including pedophiles and murderers that are currently allowed to marry (Bidstrup, 2004); certainly homosexual couples desiring to marry have a more pure motive than these corrupt citizens.

There are many benefits the community could reap from allowing same sex marriages. Most gay couples exhibit strong values in their communities (Bidstrup, 2004). Others are loyal and devoted couples, committed to their communities and abiding by the law (Bidstrup, 2004). Many homosexual couples are more committed and less inclined to engage in promiscuous activity once married, decreasing the risk for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (Bidstrup, 2004).

Conclusions

Most people are afraid to support same sex unions for the simple reason they are not comfortable with the idea. This is based primarily on deeply seated religious beliefs that include the notion that marriage is a 'sacred' institution or right that should be bestowed only on heterosexual couples. However objections based on this premise are not grounded in solid democratic constitutional principles. The constitution guarantees equal protection and rights under the law. Clearly homosexual couples are denied their constitutional rights by same sex marriage opponents. Subjective arguments are not enough to support banning same sex marriage.