Homosexuality

In our class, over the past three weeks, homosexuality and the question of its morality has been asked over and over again with the same three of for answers for why it is or is not moral. The main talking points against homosexual behavior have been first and foremost, the Bible, sanctity of marriage, procreation, and raising a stable family. In this argument, I plan to demonstrate why the ladder three examples are irrelevant, and lightly touch on biblical quandaries. I say "lightly" because in order for me to refute the typical narrow minded argument of the bible-beating south, I would have to disprove the belief that the bible is not the word of God, but rather the creation of man in the image of God. This of course, would easily turn this short essay into a much maligned and extremely unpopular novel.

The issue of gay marriage has infested news paper headlines and has now become a key component in political campaigning. The argument is that if Americans allow gays to get married, it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Now, I have understood this to mean that the more gays that get married, the more people will become gay and our society will crumble. My response is simple: if our nation's people are so sexually confused that once they see a gay wedding, they in turn will become gay, then we have a much larger issue than was originally expected. Personally, I am over 99 percent sure that I will not start liking men just because I am allowed to marry one.

Another way to interpret this notion of destroying the sanctity of marriage is that throughout history it has always been between a man and a woman. Times have clearly changed and our society has become more open about same sex relations. Pardon me if I am wrong, but I have always thought of marriage as a bond between two people that love each other. Are we so dense that we cannot fathom the idea of a same sex couple loving each other in the way a heterosexual couple would?

Perhaps the phrase "sanctity of marriage" means that the true purpose of marriage is to procreate and start a family. The basic argument here is that same sex couples cannot procreate therefore the act of sex would be for pure pleasure and thus immoral. Does this mean that a straight woman who cannot produce an egg should not be allowed to marry or have sex? Can a man still be married and live a happy life if he can not produce semen? Obviously the answer is yes because it is accepted, so then what is the difference between the two?

Let's consider an alternative situation that has also received much public scrutiny. I am of course talking about gay couples adopting children. The claim against this is that two of the same sex parents are unfit to raise a child because they cannot give the same nurturing of a man and a woman. There are so many arguments that I can use to refute this claim but I will pick an easy one: single parent families. A better name for this would be a "broken home."