The Rant

Same-sex marriage is a heated topic of conversation today, whether it is in the media, in classrooms, or even in nice clean-cut homes all across America. Some of these people go on and on about how the government totally has the right to tell you who you can and cannot fall in love with. Whats the difference; the government basically tells you how to do everything else anyway? Therefor, a certain part of the population accepts and agrees with the fact that marriage rights are taken away from those who are in loving, committed relationships, merely because their sexual practices tend to be "different" from most. Can we say simple minded? But isn't that the definition of marriage? A bond between two individuals that love each other and are committed together, "for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health". Not once in marriage vows do you hear "until the wife gets pregnant" or "and social unity for all". Society has nothing to do with a personal commitment and relationship. But apparently all hell would break loose if marriages were not made simply for the reasons of getting pregnant and to please the public. Again, I ask simple minded? I wish I could bet on how many little boys are raised in nice well-to-do towns in the suburbs, go to catholic schools and church every Sunday, and are the ideal perfect kid, which is part of the ideal perfect family. These same little boys go away to college and "experiment" with their sexuality, and want to bring a nice girl home to mom and dad but end up bringing a nice GUY home to them instead. Or little girls who, stereotypically to love to be a ballerina in their pink too-too, decided she want to like the TEACHER more than she does the dancing. They later become ballet school drop outs to join the almost-all boys tee-ball team. The irony does not escape me. I personally don't see what the problem is. People have commitments to each other, not to be socially or politically correct, but because they LOVE one another. It seems that the word "love" has lost all its meaning. It is no longer the earth-shattering desire to be with that one and only one for the rest of your life. No. For if it were, many homosexual couples would be the first in line. That, I am sure of.

What the Experts Say

To homosexuals and gay and lesbian activists, legal marriage is the next and ultimate step they need and want to take. They long for that commitment and think it is totally unfair they are being denied their right to legalize their love. They, and many more, feel that marriage is not defined by gender, but by what the marriage represents. One of these people is writer Maggie Gallagher,who describes the meaning of marriage as being "an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people for their own personal reasons to enhance their own personal well-being. Marriage is created by the couple, for the couple." In her personal view, marriage has no gender and is simply created by the two people involved in a loving relationship, making their own sentimental standards of "marriage" that works for them.
Democratic Representative Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island says the debate about same-sex marriage "is really about a simple question, a question of equal rights. Marriage is a basic right... Love and commitment are essential pillars of marriage. They are qualities that do not discriminate on account of gender... Love and commitment can exist between a man and a woman, and it can and does exist between men, and between women." He points out that not only is marriage not based on gender, but that it does already exist. Marriage is based on love; a connection two people share deeply. Love can be created by two committed people, no matter what their sex, race, beliefs, or sexual orientation. You cannot tell yourself not to feel the way you feel for someone. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry does not mean their meaningful relationships don't exists. They are just as real and loving as heterosexual couples' relationships. Ignoring their relationship wants and needs does not make them or the problem go away. Allowing same-gender couples to marry and legally express their commitment to one another like heterosexuals do does not take away the meaning of marriage, nor does it discriminate against heterosexuality. "If marital instability is a problem, it is not a problem on which gays are going to have much effect. Extending marriage to gay and lesbian couples would broaden, but not necessarily dilute, society's support for marriage and long-term interpersonal commitment" says Stephen Macedo in his essay entitled "Homosexuality and the Conservative Mind". Marriage is a divine right that everyone should have. It is YOU AND YOUR PARTNERS way of expressing your love and creating a life together, regardless of what kind of life that is.

Second Best

I feel my second best argument is acceptance in society. In 1999, 2/3 of Americans believed that gay and lesbian couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it came to marriage. However, in this past June, during a Rutgers-Eagle poll, 50% of people favored gar marriage, 44% opposed it, and the remaining 6% was for error. These stats shows how simply over a period of about 7 years, same-sex marriage has made its way from being open in society, to being ACCEPTED in society. Younger people and the new generations coming into this world have a better understanding and first hand experiences dealing with same-sex couples. Their views on the subject are far more liberating than elders, who back in their day, homosexuality was a topic kept very hush-hushed. As time goes on and the first for same-sex marriages goes with it, it is seen as simply a different way of life, BUT a life that does indeed exist. It is only natural that eventually it will be completely accepted.

The Best of the Best

My best argument in supporting same-sex marriage is of personal issues like commitment and marriage privileges/benefits. The government should have no right to say who you can and cannot fall in love with. It could be considered a violation between separation of church and state. It also is unthinkable that if your significant other was in a life or death situation, you would not have control over what happens. If two people want to be committed to one another, that is their choice. Love knows no gender. Gay and lesbian couples are just as committed to their lovers, if not more so because they know how rare it is. Therefore, they should be awarded the same benefits to their other half as heterosexual couples get. There should be legal and economic equality to all people, despite their sexual orientation or the person they choose to share a life with. All people are people. Discrimination has not been put up with when having to do with race, more specifically interracial marriage, so why should same-sex marriage be any different?

All in Favor Say Aye!

I am proud to say that I am in favor for the legalization of same-gender marriages. I have selected this position because somehow I feel it is very close to my heart. I find it completely and utterly ridiculous that the government and other pointless people in society can tell a person who they can and cannot love. When you decide you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, it is not based on their genitalia, but them as a person. The fact that anti-gay and lesbian activists can't see this is extremely alarming, as it shows how superficial and judgemental they are.
I think my strongest argument will be that overall, no one has the right, and should have the power, to tell you who you can or cannot be committed to. My other arguments include that same-sex marriage might be against religious beliefs, but doesn't the Bible, for example, say that we should except all; that God himself "accepts all his children"? If same-sex marriage is opposed because they are unprocreative, shouldn't infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples who just don't want kids be unable to marry?
I intend on getting my readers to see and agree with my point of view by applying this issue to every day life. How would you feel if someone told you you couldn't be with the person you loved? How would it effect you to know that if you loved one was sick in the hospital or had passed away, you would not be able to see them one last time or be involved in their burial wishes?
My concerns for not being able to argue this position are the Social Security, benefits, and pension issues. It is hard to argue that gay and lesbian couples deserve these marital privileges when their union is barely recognized.

On the Con Side....

There are some, if not many, who do not agree with the modern-day issue at hand. They believe ignoring it or turning down any resolution is the way to put an end to it. However, it's plain to see that is not the case. People who are opposed to same-gender couples are doing whatever they can to stop the legalization of their marriage. Anti-gay and lesbian representatives are taking the prevention of same-sex marriages to a new level. Although I don't agree with their view-points, they do have some arguments on why it should not be legally allowed.
For one, religious morals. People, particularly religious leaders and representatives, hate the idea of same-sex marriages because according to their view of the Bible and other sacred books, it is total damnation. These same people also oppose homosexual marriage because it is unprocreative, which also according to some parts of religious books, is the main purpose of life.
Another reason Anti-activists reject the idea of same-sex marriage is because they think it will damage society. Families are only meant to be a husband, wife, and children. Any other obscure family situation is unfathomable to these simple-minded people.

On the Pro Side...

Along with gay activists, many silent supporters, myself included, agree with the fight to pass same-sex marriages. All involved in this debate have many examples and reasons on why their bond should be legalized into marriage.
One of these arguments is that committed homosexual couples should receive the same benefits and privileges as heterosexual couples. Many different-sex couples can get benefits such as their partners' Social Security or health care if something should happen to them, regardless if they are married or not. Gay and lesbian couples feel they should also have these benefits.
Also, heterosexual partners can be involved or solely responsible for hospital and death decisions for their significant other. The fact that homosexual partners are sometimes not even allowed to VISIT their girlfriends/boyfriends in the hospital, let alone make burial decisions, hurts them deeply.
Lastly, and more importantly, the closest argument to these couples hearts, is that they this it is unconstitutional and unjustified that the government and people are telling them who they can and can not love. If two people are committed to each other, marriage should be a right that they have. A union to forever bond them together, both emotionally and legally, DESPITE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.