Arguing Same Sex Marriage

Arguing Same Sex Marriage

Although some Americans believe that same-sex marriage should remain illegal, these marriages should be allowed along side traditional marriages because the US Constitution guarantees the equal rights of all citizens.

The issue of gay marriage can be approached from many angles. Whether for or against it, Christians and Conservatives generally approach it as a moral issue whereas the non-religious and Liberals tend to see the argument as a legal or human rights issue. Of course there are members of all demographics that have mixed opinions about same-sex marriage and whether it should be legalized either at a state or federal level.

One group that has a history of opposing same-sex marriage is Concerned Women for America (CWFA). CWFA was founded in 1979 and is the nation's largest public policy women's organization. They claim to seek to "protect traditional values and support the Biblical design of the family" ("Concerned Women for America," 2012). What they actually protect is an outdated, religious-based stance on gay marriage that is bigoted and discriminatory.

Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for CWFA, wrote an article last year called "Why Homosexual 'Marriage' is Wrong" where she outlines 10 reasons she believes the legalization of gay marriage would be harmful. She says that homosexuals are seeking a right that is unique to them, and that they already have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex (LaRue, 2012). This is obviously just a way to skirt the issue and is an exercise in blatant avoidance of meaningful dialog.

LaRue's next point is less avoiding the issue, as it is infantile. She states (LaRue, 2012) that gay marriage "denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other" (para. 2). This would suggest that just because certain body parts can easily fit together between a man and a woman, that this invalidates homosexuality. Using this logic, same-sex partners participating in a passionate kiss would be included in the group of complementing human puzzle pieces from which LaRue just tried to exclude them.

Certainly evolution has provided for male and female genitals to match up to each other for the purpose of reproduction, but this do not establish homosexuality as unnatural. Many opponents of same-sex marriage believe that marriage is meant for the purpose of reproduction and the raising of children, and gay marriage obviously precludes shared biological offspring. If this is the case, heterosexuals past childbearing age or the infertile should not be allowed to marry because they will never produce biologically shared offspring. One could also say measures should be taken to ensure that couples fully capable of bearing children do in fact reproduce. Cline (2012), since we do not see anyone proposing these measures, we have to conclude that those who are against same-sex marriage do not take this argument seriously (para. 1).

Another stance taken in the article by LaRue is that gay marriage will harm children because they will not know the love and nurture of both a mom and dad. She says, "The only 'procreation' homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship (LaRue, 2012). First, LaRue does not follow up her statement that children are harmed in the care of homosexual couples with any facts supporting this stance. Studies have shown, however that "results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents" (Patterson, 2004). In fact, there has never been any credible evidence shown by any major study that would show this to be the case. Even if this argument had any validity, the second point being ignored is that same-sex couples that have offspring from past heterosexual relationships or adoption are raising children whether they were to remain in