As the election nears, Marylanders will, undoubtedly, be bombarded with advertising telling you why you shouldn’t vote “yes” on Question 6. Voting yes on Question 6 means you support the Marriage Equality Act, the law that will allow same sex marriage in Maryland. Here’s a break down of the arguments opposing Question 6 that you’re likely to hear.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Of course, there are hundreds of variations of this argument, complete with Scripture quotes, but all of them boil down to one basic argument – God says homosexuality is an abomination so we shouldn’t legalize it.
Without going into a whole theological debate, let’s agree that God thinks homosexuality is an abomination. The bottom line is we don’t base our laws solely on what we (or some) believe God thinks. If we did, we’d be a theocracy, and we only have to look as far as the Middle East to see how well theocracies work.
That’s not to say the religious argument is without merit. If your religious belief were that same sex couples are not blessed in God’s eyes, then certainly you would want a law that doesn’t infringe on your religious beliefs. The Marriage Equality Act took that into account and expressly forbids a requirement of clergy performing same sex marriage ceremonies or a Church offering its facilities for the celebration of a same sex marriage.
You, nor your Church, have to accept same sex marriage as being acceptable in God’s eyes. What Question 6 does ask, outside of your theological beliefs, should a same sex couple be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony.
We shouldn’t reward behavioral or lifestyle choices.
This is the age-old question – is homosexuality a choice or an inherent trait? For that matter, is heterosexuality a choice or an inherent trait?
The argument goes along the lines that heterosexuality is normal, an inherent trait, that drives us, and all species, to have children and continue on. Gay people choose to go against their inherent nature in pursuit of selfish, physical pleasure.
Almost every gay person will tell you that they knew they were gay, even if they didn’t know the word for how they felt, since they hit puberty. At the time their friends were finding the attractiveness of the opposite sex, they felt the same feelings for their own sex. No gay person took a test in seventh grade sex-ed class and decided they were going to think outside of the box and choose to be gay.
Scientific evidence supports the notion that one’s sexual orientation has a strong genetic component. No, there probably isn’t a “gay gene” anymore than there is a “heterosexual gene”. But there are several genes that control hormone levels and brain development that give support to the idea that sexual orientation is mostly, if not completely, genetically driven.
Does that mean the stereotyped, flamboyant gay man in a Gay Pride event is genetically driven to act the way he does? Of course not. That would be like saying any woman in Mardi Gras is genetically driven to flash her breasts for the reward of beads.
What it does say is that God (or genetics, depending upon your beliefs) gave us the greatest gift of all – the need to love and be loved. What we, as individuals, find in our heart to be our life long soul mate, the one who we will love and cherish until death do us part, shouldn’t be legislated by others who don’t approve of the love.
No one has the right to redefine marriage.
That argument is the furthest thing from the truth. When Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, incest was the norm. We forbid immediate family members from marrying today, and rightly so. Historically, polygamy was the norm and supported in our Bible. Today, rightly so, we forbid polygamous marriages. In fact, the Bible describes six forms of marriage, of which only one we accept today. So, yes, we have had no problem redefining marriage.
The Supreme Court, in 1967, was faced with the question of who can and cannot marry. Many states forbade the marriage of a Black person to a White person. In their ruling, in Loving vs Virginia, the Supreme Court made two significant decisions. The first was that the right to marry was a basic civil right afforded to any two people. The second was that a state could deny a marriage only if the state could show a compelling reason.
A state can easily show that a brother and sister marrying could result in children with severe genetic handicaps. That’s a pretty compelling reason to deny immediate family members from marrying. A state could also show that a man married to more than one woman could result in children he could not financially support, not to mention the emotional neglect necessary for a healthy family. That’s a pretty compelling reason to deny polygamy.
What compelling reason would a state have to deny a same sex marriage?
There are an estimated 6 – 14 million children being raised by same sex parents. Studies show that these children not only are equal to their peers in intellectual and emotional growth, but also are often “more balanced” than their peers. In fact, their biggest obstacle is not that they have two Dads or two Moms. Their biggest obstacle is dealing with the prejudices of their peers and other parents because “traditional parents” aren’t raising them.
What compelling reason can you come up with to justify denying two same sex people from marrying? When answering this question, remember, you have to come up with measurable harm the state would suffer, the key word being, measurable.
Children do best when raised by a married Mom and Dad.
This is a smoke screen argument designed to denigrate not only same sex couples, but also single parents. As already mentioned, studies don’t support this argument.
The general gist of the argument is based on the notion that if two men are raising a child, the child is deprived of a female role model. Conversely, if two women are raising a child, the child is deprived of a male role model.
What this argument does is assume that children are raised in a vacuum. They’ll grow up to be just like Mom and Dad, so if you don’t have the proper role models, the child will not grow up “normal.”
Here’s a surprise fact. Just like heterosexual couples, same sex couples have extended families and friends who help in the raising of a child. There are plenty of role models in a child’s life for him or her to learn from. There are grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. When the child is old enough to go to school, there are friends and their families. Role models abound. Sure, Bob, being raised by two Moms, might grow up and think it’s normal for him to cook dinner once in awhile… and that’s a bad thing? Or Suzie, being raised by two Dads, might grow up and think it’s perfectly normal for her to change a flat tire… and that’s a bad thing?
Children do best when they have a family who loves and supports them. It really is that simple.
Come this November, once you wade through all the empty rhetoric, how will you vote on Question 6?
© 2012
Mark Darien
All rights reserved
Please include this copyright notice if you share this article
No comments:
Post a Comment