alyaida

Not to get anyone wrong, I'm so extremely happy that Obama has won the election. I was crying so hard yesterday out of pure joy.

However, it seems that my joy has been short-lived seeing how the state of California is currently lacking brains.

Marriage had been for years the religious union between a man and a woman, but who says what marriage truly is? We are leading into the twenty-first century and with a new day comes reestablished traditions. Imagine being refused from a civil right that everyone else is granted just because of who you are, and there’s isn’t anything to can do about it, because you can’t help being who you are. Who is anyone to deny a common right to a group of individuals based on an expression of prejudice? Homophobic reasoning is anything but compelling and is from an ideology with scientific logic to back it up.

Many believe that marriage is the institution between one man and one woman in holy matrimony in the presence of god. Supposedly marriage is for the procreation of our species strictly and that’s why we shouldn’t allow homosexuals to marry. According to these individuals, even with adopted children, same sex couples aren’t an ideal environment to raise young children. Others argue that by allowing same-sex marriage we’ll be starting a slope of mess that will lead to polygamy and other consequences. Another point many may argue that by allowing same-sex marriage to be legalized, we will be putting the religious institutes around North America in a situation where they cannot deny marrying the couple even when it goes against their personal beliefs, thus denying the church legal rights, and that same-sex marriage is an untried social ‘experiment’ in which the outcomes are unknown, therefore engaging our society in such environment could be harmful.

While many may believe such ideas, there is no absolute logic behind any of them. Firstly, the idea that “gay couples don’t provide the optimum environment in which to raise children”; many studies including “The Lesbian Mother” written by Bernice Goodman for the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (Vol. 43, 1983), “Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or Transsexual Parents” by Richard Green for the American Journal of Psychiatry (study #692, 1978), and “Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and Practical Implications" by David Cramer for the Journal of Counseling & Development (study #504, 1986) have shown that the outcome of the child raised in such environments are practically the same as those of straight couple homes, the differences are said to be ‘insignificant.’ What makes the difference is the commitment of the child’s parents, rather than their gender, and regardless of sexual orientation you are able to present such commitment. As for the point that “marriage should only be used for procreation purposes” …then should post-menopausal women be denied the right to marry? Marriage is more about the love, sharing and commitment rather than the idea of procreating, and according to The Atlantic, a collection of literary articles that has been in business for over 150 years, one of our world’s biggest issues is over-populating and therefore an increase daily in anarchism. Perhaps having some couples who cannot procreate would do society some good.

Secondly, the idea that same-sex marriages will lead to polygamy, incest, bestial marriage etc.; such ideas are calculated to create fear within the eyes of others, without any value based on occurrence. If these consequences were fact, wouldn’t that have occurred in countries where forms of homosexual marriage had been already legalized? Gay marriage has been legalized Scandinavian countries for many years, and no legalization of incest, polygamy or any other legalizations that have been suggested have happened, nor has there been any uproar for them to occur. If the real issue here was the concern for a “slippery slope,” then there would be a equally as concerning vocal outrage as to the fact that child molesters, pedophiles, pimps, convicted murderers etc. are able to raise children and marry legally.

The argument that those who are anti-gay marriage use in defense lastly is that “gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have the moral right to oblige.” There is nothing in the law of marriage that is currently forcing any institute to marry any couple, whether it is a homosexual or metro sexual relationship. Churches and other religious buildings already have the right to turn down couples as they wish and for any reason that suits them, the legalization of homosexual marriages wouldn’t change that – it would offer the institutes the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish to do so. In fact, with the legalization of gay marriage, the freedom of religion would be expanded, not contracted, as gay marriage is kindly welcomed in Buddhist culture. By allowing the right to celebrate homosexuality we would be allowing full religious freedom; after all, the bible has no standing in North American law, this was made clear in the First Amendment and as well as the Treaty of Tripoli in 1791.

Over all, the true definition of marriage isn’t something that can be pin-pointed. Its main idea is the celebration of two individuals regardless of gender of either. The vague declarations against gay marriage through out the past years are hardly gripping and are more of an expression of prejudice rather than a real argument. How is it that by allowing people to get married we are threatening marriage’s existence? The stability of heterosexual marriage is currently weak because we’re encouraging gays to marry those whom they are not attracted to. By the legalization gay marriage we are strengthening the concept of marriage even more, as the stress of homosexuals who have to force themselves into heterosexual relationships will be unchained. Furthermore, if the straight community cannot show facts that don’t have a bias, the legalization of gay marriage has no evidence to be denied.

Afterall, the concept of denying people their rights without an undeniable reason goes against the very concept of the basis of the North American ideal of human rights.