A logical approach to same sex marriages

Recently the same sex marriage debate has been heating up once again. Each time this debate pops up the voices, on both sides, get louder and louder. The battle lines are being drawn and states, cities, companies, and millions of people are all voicing their beliefs when it comes to the “gay marriage” debate.

What I’m doing is taking a logical, analytically, and factual look at the benefits as well as the disadvantages. I’ll also look at the claims that both sides make to see if they are factual, misleading, speculation, or flat out lies.

First, I’ll look at supporting arguments.

Homosexual couples deserve the same rights as straight couples. I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with this one. Everyone legal citizen in the USA deserves the same rights and freedoms that everyone else has. Our Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self-evident that, all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness“.

I bolded two phrases which I think are highly relevant – all men are created equal and the pursuit of happiness. This clearly states that we all should have the same rights and we all have the right to make ourselves happy. If being in a same sex relationship makes someone happy then why deny them that right? They are not hurting anyone else nor are they infringing on anyone else’s rights.

Same sex married couples deserve the same benefits as straight couples. As far as benefits go, you need to look at what benefits people are talking about. For example, work benefits (insurance etc.). This is up to the employer and their insurance provider. People need to take it up with their employers. Many companies today are allowing “domestic partnership” benefits for non-married couples (homosexual and heterosexual). This also includes life insurance beneficiaries, 401K recipients, and so on. When you’re talking about tax benefits then it is a political issue. Tax codes might need to be updated if a term other than “marriage” is used.

Same sex couples won’t contribute to overpopulation.This is very true. The vast majority of same sex couples who want children will adopt (a few will use a donor or surrogate but I think they are in the minority?). This means they will take a child out of a situation where they are unwanted or can’t be raised well and put it in a better situation. Plus, there are usually a lot of safeguards in place when it comes to adoptions.

Now, arguments against same sex marriages:

It will destroy the sanctity of marriage. I really want to ask – how? I know a lot of straight couples who know same-sex couples and none of their marriages are affected by it, I know that my marriage has definitely not been affected by same sex couples getting married. Plus, there are many issues affecting marriages today, adultery, divorce, children being born out of wedlock, abuse, short-marriages, marriages of convenience, and so on. Many say that people should get married to only have children. What about all the couples who can’t have children? Those who don’t want to have children? What about elderly couples who get married?

Same sex married couples will raise gay children. Just like all straight couples only have straight children? Oh, wait, every homosexual person same from a mother and a father and I doubt all of them were homosexual (I’ll put money down the vast majority of them were straight).

The bible defines a marriage as the union of a man and a woman.. I’ve been looking for the passage but I can’t find it where it actually defines marriage as that. Since in the New Testament Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding we have to assume it is in the Old Testament (meaning not just Christians but also Jewish people since the Torah is the old testament, as well as Muslims since the early parts of the Qu’ran are based on the Old Testament). I did find this passage in the King James Bible:

Corinthians 7: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

There are many others that talk about marriage but no where does it come closer to saying that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman. (Please comment with the passage(s) if I am wrong). There is also another flaw with this belief. The First Amendment of the US Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; this is commonly referred to as “freedom of religion”. The US Government cannot make laws based on or infringing on a religion (unless that religion directly interferes with the rights of others). So making a law based on religious speculation is not constitutional.

Same sex married couples will still be allowed to split whenever they want. In the states that recognize same sex marriages also view them in the same way as a heterosexual marriage. For them to separate they’ll have to go though a divorce just like everyone else.

I’ll welcome any comments for either side as long as they are factual and mature. Personally, I would love to hear clear and factual reasons why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry but please keep it mature and factual – I do not want any name calling, flame wars, etc. Personally, I haven’t heard a single one yet. I don’t see any reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

Leave a Reply