If You Oppose Gay Marriage, You're Wrong

This article is a direct rebuttal to articles such as “One man One woman”.
Gay marriage is easily one of the most highly debated points in the world. More and more states and countries are realizing that members of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community have the right to marry whom they want and receive the same marital recognition as straight couples. There are still those who, of course, cite illegitimate reasons as they attempt to justify their hatred and discrimination.

I am going to make my point loud and clear. I have considered all of the opinions and possibilities and, though this may sound very straightforward, I know that gay marriage is right and that those who are against it are wrong. In this essay, I’m going to use logic, reason, statistics and facts to back up my opinion that homosexuals have every right to marry. I’ll list every ill-founded fallacy and myth that has been used to denounce gay marriage, and why it just doesn’t work. By the end of this article it will become clear to those who oppose gay marriage that their views don’t align with logic and equality. If there are any points I haven’t addressed, please be sure to leave it in a comment, and I’ll be happy to rebut it.

Excuse #1: Because certain Christian teachings say that the Bible doesn’t support homosexuality, we shouldn’t allow gays to marry.

Why It’s Garbage: The last time I checked, we lived in a democracy, not a theocracy. The constitution clearly calls for separation of church and state. Remember the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " This means that religion and government are to be kept apart.
Still not convinced? Article 6, section 3 of the Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Would that be the case if America was a Christian nation? Of course not. The Constitution’s authors wanted to make sure that no single religion could be the official, national religion, such as England had. Never are the words “Jesus Christ”, “Christianity” or “Bible” mentioned in the Constitution except in exclusionary terms, or in referring to “Nature’s God”, which is subject to interpretation.
America is NOT a “Christian nation”. Even though the majority of Americans identify themselves with some sort of Christian faith, this does not identify the country as a whole as being Christian. As Michael Lind, policy director at the New America Foundation, points out, “In the 21st century it is clear that democracy as a form of government does not require citizens who believe in supernatural religion.”
Those who claim that our Founding Fathers were Christian and therefore the basis for the Constitution was Christian are wrong as well. The majority of our Founding Fathers weren’t Christian, they were Deists, which means that they believed the universe had a creator but that this creator doesn’t concern himself with the lives of humans or directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or sacred books.
Now that we’ve established that Christianity and marriage have little to do with each other except when those getting married want it that way, let me make it clear that marriage is government-controlled. One can choose to be married through a church, as they often do, but when you get down to it, marriage is a license issued by the state you live in.
I recently read a letter to the editor of my local newspaper that was written by a woman who, like me, was tired of religion being used as an excuse to “protect traditional marriage.” She expressed that she and her husband were atheists and were married in a law office by a judge in a completely secular ceremony. She described how she wanted people to stop putting their religion into her idea of marriage. It is sad that religion and marriage have become so intertwined to the point that people think they are directly linked for everyone.
In 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, also known as Mormon) donated over $180,000 to support Proposition 8 in California, a proposed amendment to the constitution defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, which later passed. Ten percent of the money they raised didn’t even come from the state of California. The fundraising occurred after church officials in Salt Lake City, Utah (where I currently reside) issued a letter urging members of the LDS faith to support Proposition 8 in defense of traditional marriage. While I respect the LDS church and its beliefs, I find it ridiculous that with all of the worthwhile causes in the world that could have used $180,000—fighting poverty, improving education—they chose to donate to the anti-gay-marriage cause.

Religion should NOT be used as an excuse for denying members of the LGBT community the right to marry.

On August 4, 2010, a U.S. District Judge ruled to overturn Proposition 8. This ruling was the right thing to do. It is almost certain that the decision will be appealed by those who want to uphold Proposition 8, but if justice prevails, that appeal will not be granted.

In his statement, Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker said, "The evidence shows that Prop. 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution, the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and because Prop. 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes the Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.”

Some people complain that Walker’s ruling was biased because he was gay. If you’re one of those people, consider this: if Walker was straight and ruled against gay marriage, would you still be crying bias?

Excuse #2: Homosexuality is a choice.

Why it’s Garbage: Homosexuality is NOT a choice. While researchers have still not come to a conclusion about a single factor that influences what make some people homosexual and others heterosexual, numerous studies have found genetic causes for homosexuality. I will highlight a few.

A recent study links a mother's genetic make-up to the homosexuality of her sons. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is "inactive". The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases, however, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. This study found that in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.

Other studies suggest that birth order can influence homosexuality. Blanchard and Kassen in 1997 found that each older brother a man has increases his chance of being homosexual by 33%; in other words, men with more older brothers are more likely to be gay. This is now considered to be "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation.”

Still other studies find that brain structure is responsible. A 2010 study stated: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.”
I’ll quote one last study, and that is that “gay-to-straight” programs, or programs designed to make gay people feel attraction for the opposite sex, do not work. The American Psychological Association found in 2009 that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are effective.
If you’re less of a scientific-study sort of person and more of a how-does-this-relate-to-me-personally sort of person, consider this: did you ever at any point in your life, sit down and think to yourself, “I have a choice to be gay and I have a choice to be straight. I’m going with straight.” No, of course not. You can probably remember feeling curiosity about the opposite sex from a young age, and more so as puberty began to hit. You didn’t choose. You simply can’t choose whom you are attracted to.
Also, consider this question: even if it was a choice that someone makes to be gay or not, shouldn’t they have the right to make that choice? Why couldn’t they choose that, theoretically? We live in a free country, meaning that people can choose what they want and have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. If the choice doesn’t hurt someone else (which it doesn’t), they have every right to make that choice.
Therefore, that argument doesn’t work, whether you support the scientific findings or not.

Excuse #3: Gay marriage threatens traditional marriage.
Why it’s Garbage: “’We have always done it that way' is a corollary to 'Because I say so.' It's not a reason. You can't have constitutional discrimination…because you have always done it that way." Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson delivered the closing argument for the two same-sex couples who sued to overturn voter-approved Proposition 8, claiming it violated their civil rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Just because something different is introduced does not make the “original version” any worse off. In 1967, the Supreme court ruled to allow interracial marriages (marriages between people of different races). I have yet to see any negative effects of this ruling. Have you seen any way in which an interracial married couple has harmed a same-race couple? Of course not.
Society often feels threatened by new ideas, so it is understandable that some may feel that gay marriage somehow undermines straight marriage. But this doesn’t justify discrimination. It boils down to this: straight couples who don’t like homosexuality don’t want a gay couple to have the same status as them, and that status is marriage. They don’t like the idea of a gay couple with an adopted child being considered a “family” just as their nuclear family is.
But simply not liking an idea is not enough to deny someone the right to marry. Some people are content with giving gay couples the status of “civil union”. This suggests that they can’t be at the same level as straight couples. It’s simply unfair. There would be so much public outrage if interracial couples were given the status of “interracial union” or something of the sort. As one woman at a pro-gay marriage rally in Washington, D.C., wrote on a sign, “I didn’t ask her to ‘civil union’ me.”
But it doesn’t matter what you call it, in my opinion. One new theory for those who don’t want their religious, traditional marriage to be “threatened” is this: reduce all “marriages” to “civil unions” (allowing both gay and straight couples to have a “civil union.”) This is licensed by the state, as usual, and couples can choose to have a marriage ceremony performed in a church or temple if they choose. I support this idea because both gay and straight marriages would be at the same level.

Excuse #5: If we allow homosexuality, are we also going to allow things like pedophilia?

This is one of the saddest, most ill-founded, pathetic excuses ever. Consider it for a moment: two people who love each other and BOTH want to get married, can do no harm. There is no victim. Pedophilia or underage marriage, on the other hand, directly harm someone; the victim cannot consent. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two COMPLETELY different things. The former is okay, the latter is not. Homosexuality DOES NOT hurt children. There is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that gays are more likely to abuse or molest children than heterosexuals are.

In an absurd letter to the editor in my local newspaper, a man commented on the fact that an LGBT support group was now allowed at a local high school. His argument was that if we allowed LGBT clubs, were we also going to allow clubs for adultery and other sins? How unthoughtful and ridiculous. LGBT students need support as they struggle to accept their sexual identity in a society that is often unfair and cruel. While there are no definite numbers regarding suicide rates for gay teenagers, studies suggest that gay teens are four times as likely to commit suicide than straight teenagers, and the Department of Public Health in Massachusetts found that “gay high school students attempt suicide at a particularly high rate”. Students trying to understand their sexual orientation in the already turbulent time of adolescence need LGBT clubs at school to provide support and foster understanding.

Excuse #6: Gays can’t reproduce.

Why it’s Garbage: Of course they can’t, but is this such a bad thing? Allowing gay marriage is not going to cause extinction for the human population. Why? Because some of us are gay, and some of us are straight. It’s always going to be that way.

One popular but ill-founded argument is that if the purpose of marriage is to procreate (have children), and gays can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married. So what these people are basically saying is that you should only get married if you’re going to reproduce.

Right, so what about all of the straight married couples out there who don’t want or can’t have kids? Should they not be married? What’s next, a fertility test before a marriage license is issued?
Maybe gays don’t have kids of their own, but they can still adopt. Those who oppose gay marriage argue that a child should be raised by a mother and father. (So what’s next, single-parent households being banned?) But at any given time in the United States, there are 119,000 children in foster care. Children have the right to a permanent home, and denying gays the right to adopt is denying children this right.
There’s also the use of artificial insemination, as well as in vitro fertilization. Who says gay’s can’t have kids?
According to the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, "those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both". Studies determining how children who grow up in LGBT-parented households and children who grow up in heterosexual-parented households, prove that these children develop at the same rate. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that LGBT-parented households are a bad environment for children.

Another Point I’d Like to Make:

Legally speaking, a lesbian can marry a gay man. It’s completely legal. So this means that the issue really isn’t homosexuality, per say; it’s gender.

According to the Constitution, men and women have equal rights. Why, then, can a man marry a woman but a woman can’t marry a woman? That is giving a man the opportunity to do something and denying a woman that same opportunity. It’s sexist.

On a Personal Note:

Everyone has something that they feel particularly passionate about, and gay marriage is that for me. I’m not gay or bisexual or anything, but I have several friends who are.
My birth father is also gay. He has been in a relationship with his partner for over a decade. I know that their love is as true and real as any straight couple’s love. My dad and his partner aren’t weird or different. They’re normal men living normal lives who also happen to live together. They contribute to society. They’re real people in a real relationship, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t they be able to get married?
Of course, we live in a free country, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you still oppose equality and fairness, I will respect your view. I urge you, however, to take a closer look at mine.