You have probably seen this symbol floating around various social networking sites lately. Released by the Human Rights Campaign in support of marriage equality, its been replacing many social network profile pictures, as people proclaim their pro-equality stance to the world.
Some consider it a pointless gesture, in that a million profile pictures has never changed anything. Granted. But I like the idea because it brings attention to an issue that arguably, should have been EASILY settled long ago (not unlike a great many other issues facing the US and the world today).
Unfortunately, when it comes to marriage equality and a whole host of other issues, the topics are often clouded by religion, misinformation, and bias. And a good chunk of this misinformation and bias is at the hand of the various texts of religion.
To folks like me, it’s as simple as, when the pros are weighed against the cons, there is no reason why gay couples should not be allowed to marry the partner of their choice.
Many of religious backgrounds then pick up their bible, and point to the verse:
“You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination”.
One of the easiest reasons to swat down, just because the US has something in place called, the separation of church and state. Otherwise known as, the opinions and rules of the church do not apply as the law of the land.
Another biblical verse for you to chew on:
They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. ‘Bring them out,’ they shouted, ‘so that we might have intercourse with them.
Another common thread you may hear is that homosexuality is somehow detrimental to society at large. For this one, I fail to see any connection whatsoever. When I think of things that are detrimental to society, I think of things like climate change, corporations gone wild, rapidly accelerating poisoning of our biosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . .gay marriage as a concept, fits nowhere on the list.
What I can see in it, is positive. If a couple wants to get married, then they are obviously in love, and therefore, happy. So, if they are happy together, why would we deny them the right to marriage?
Which opens another can of worms. If homosexuals do not qualify for marriage, who else is on the list?
Can non-believers marry? Can people of other faiths (or sects) marry? Can faiths intermarry with one another? Can atheists marry theists? Can one race intermarry with another? Oh wait . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#United_States.
As far as I can see, many of the “marriage protectors” are in fear the “the gays” will stain their squeaky clean institution that is marriage. Even though, with the divorce rates of today, the heterosexuals are doing a good job of it themselves!
Hollywood makes for a great example, but it’s wider spread than that. And yet, I have yet to see an anti-divorce rally.
One must be careful is they choose to deny a group a right, based on a single adjective of a bigger more complex personality. Apparently we “learned” from interracial marriage. What’s the difference? The same misinformation and bull is being touted by the ignorant and bigoted. The only thing that’s changed, is the adjective.
Another argument you hear is the “slippery slope” argument (if we allow gays to marry, what next? Bestiality?). This one is just ridiculous. In the case of bestiality, last I checked, animals can not consent to anything. And for those afraid that the NAMBLA folk will go into high gear, and encourage lawmakers to legalize their “love”, I remind you that anyone under 16 can not legally consent.
Polygamy? Well, if we look at it rationally, and use consent as the guideline, why not? Assuming that all partners are willing participants, who are we to deny it?
So, since there are still laws in place keeping me from marrying a 10-year-old or a billy goat, then the “slippery slope” argument goes out the window. And since there exists a separation between church and state, then the “biblical”/religious element should be moot. And, wouldn’t this also mean that any politician that is using their beliefs (or for that matter, the beliefs of their constituents, since it apples either way) to influence their decision on this issue (or any other), is committing a crime?
So it seems that there is no reason why homosexuals should NOT be allowed to marry their partner of choice. Love is love, be it between a straight or a gay couple. And the relationship of a couple has no negative effects on society at large. So, why are we still arguing?