Same-sex Marriage: A Kristina Kommentary

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.)

Help to Soldiers

I stumbled upon an Austin American statesman article titled "Obama vows to help soldiers, marks Iraq war end" written by Matthew Daly. The article talks about President Obama's visit to the Fort Bliss Army on August 31, 2012, the two year anniversary of the end of combat operations in Iraq. Daly also discusses Obama's plan to help the veterans, current service members, and their families who will be facing a whole new set of challenges as they return home. The struggles for veterans include health issues, such as post-traumatic stress syndrome, as well as finding employment. At Fort Bliss, Obama announced that he had signed an executive order for federal agencies to expand their efforts at addressing health needs for veterans. He also renewed a call to Congress to pass measures in his economic proposals that are specifically aimed for veterans, including tax credits for businesses that hire veterans.  Daly also includes the criticism of Obama's plan. Romney's campaign said that "Obama's economic policies had made it more difficult for veterans" and "more veterans would face unemployment if the defense cuts are enacted."

Daly's article caught my attention mostly due to it's subject matter, but  I also like that he presented the facts on both sides.

Matthew Daly's article can be found here.