Conservative blog, Free Republic, features an article called "Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage"
by Riley Balling. The legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the
most debated issues in the United States at the moment. In his*
article, Balling argues against same-sex marriage stating it "falls
short of producing safe environments for children because
it...reinforces changes to the marital definition."
I couldn't agree less.
Wikipedia's definition of marriage is "a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship." This definition could apply to both heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Balling, on the other hand, leans more toward a narrower definition: that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, or producing children. Since gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate naturally, they should not be allowed to marry. Which, I disagree with. What about the heterosexual couples who cannot, or don't desire to, have children? Marriage is about procreation right? Should they not be allowed to marry either? Yes, procreation is an important function of marriage but it should not be the defining criterion that two individuals have the right to marry.
Balling expresses fear that his and other heterosexual, or "traditional" as he calls it, will be affected because it will change the definition of marriage. He sort of contradicts himself when he says "even though some traditional families are breaking, it doesn't mean the ideal of traditional marriage is broken." I believe he was referring to single parents, which he discusses in his following paragraph, but I think he should apply this same idea to same sex marriages as well. Just because homosexual couples are allowed to marry, doesn't mean that the concept of a man-woman marriage will cease to exist. I don't think that the definition of marriage will be changed, at all.
Throughout history, there were other marriages, such as interracial marriages, that faced discrimination. Opposers of interracial marriages made a shockingly similar argument that Balling made that marrying two people of different races was "against the definition of marriage." When interracial marriages were legalized in 1967, did the definition of marriage change from being a social union between people? No, it simply removed the discrimination. Allowing same sex marriages is no different. So, that kind of throws Balling's argument right out the window. Just saying.
Balling goes on to say that if same sex marriage is allowed, then marriage will suddenly be about personal fulfillment. What's wrong with personal fulfillment? I mean, why do we have friends? To personally fulfill our lives. I really don't understand why he thinks that personal fulfillment is a bad reason to get married. People get married for a variety of reasons, such as being in love or for spirituality/religious reasons, not just to breed. Personally, I always thought that being in love and personal fulfillment were the reasons people got married, even before I knew what homosexuality was.
Another big argument that Balling discusses in his article is how same-sex marriages fail to provide a safe environment for children. However, studies have been conducted and recently reviewed that proves his argument wrong.
The first study review was made in 1999 by Michael Wald, who is a Stanford University law professor. He looked at various studies worldwide of the children of gay and lesbian couples. None of these studies found that these children had problems with emotional , intellectual, or social development because of their parents' sexual orientation.
More recently in 2005, the American Pediatric Association appointed a committee to review the research of the well-being of children as well. This committee reached a similar conclusion to Wald: that "there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's [well-being]."
With these studies in mind, we can conclude that whether a family consists of 2 dads, 2 moms, or one of each has nothing to do with a child's well-being. After reading about these studies, I disagree with Balling's argument completely. I personally think that the well-being of children is based on their upbringing rather than their parent's sexual orientation.
I do, however, want give Balling credit for presenting his argument in a calm matter despite that I strongly disagree with him. I don't think that he, or anybody else, should be afraid of same-sex marriages. These studies clearly indicate that the children of same-sex couples will be fine and the definition of marriage would be consistent. Minus the exclusion.
*I'm assuming Riley Balling is male.
(I wrote a persuasive speech back in 2011 regarding this topic, so I included snippets of my speech in here.)
Hi Kristina,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your Kommentary on same sex marriage.
I agree that same-sex marriage is a highly debated issue. For me it speaks to the fundamental principle that divides us in this country into left and right- the true role of government in our lives, as it was intended.
Governments should not tell churches who they should and should not marry. I believe that is the right of the churches in which religious gay couples would like to get married. The purpose of government, when this country was founded, was to defend our rights, not micromanage them. It provided defense, security, the ability to coordinate and implement a system of revenue collaboration and enforcement. It was not the “nanny” state we have today. The continuing abuse of power and politicization of issues already implied actually limit our rights further.
The word “marriage”, as opposed to “civil union” denotes a religious service that requests the blessing of the church the couple belongs to, as opposed to a civil union in which a same-sex couple seeks a legally recognized union with rights similar to those of marriage. If a gay couple wants to get married in their church, I believe that it should be between that couple and their church. Some churches would not recognize this and shouldn’t be forced to be the government, because that would be a violation of THEIR rights. Any same-sex couple should be able to have a civil-union and be recognized as any traditional couple would. The sticky part here is taking that logic and turning it into federal mandated policy directed at churches that may not share this view.
For full commentary please visit : http://jentherat.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-role-of-government-in-gay-marriage.html