1 definition by xstarshineox
The marriage of two females or two males. With this comes civil rights, so gay individuals can be people, TOO.
What many people against gay marriage don't understand is that we're not voting against YOUR marriage, so why are you voting against ours? If one woman marries another woman, is that going to effect your life? Just because it goes against YOUR religion doesn't necessarily mean it goes against a gay's religion. One of the ten amendments is freedom of religion, so technically, religion can't bend a law.
Some arguments ignorant straights might make are:
The argument: Society needs traditional marriage to promote new families and children who will become the leaders of the next generation. Same-sex marriage does not promote this. Rather, it promotes the wants of individuals.
Response:Many marriages produce no children at all, but are either childless or are home to adopted children. These marriages are no less marriage in the eyes of the federal government or of God (ask, "Don't you agree?"), and the parties to it have no fewer rights because the two married individuals failed to procreate - nor should they. Many same sex couples either produce natural children or adopt, create new families, and are no more self-serving to the individual than any opposite sex marriage, therefore should not receive any fewer rights, societal accordances or benefits.
The argument: Gay marriage robs a child of a two-parent family, and studies show that a child without one or the other parent is more likely to be stricken by poverty or drug abuse.
Response:Not supported by facts. Many children suffer the loss of one parent to all sorts of different causes: death, divorce (and one parent moves far away), drug abuse or abandonment by the parent. Conveniently, many opponents of gay marriage ignore the fact that there are far more children doing well who are not being raised by their natural mother and father in an intact marital situation than there are those languishing. The figures they cite are often relating to drug abuse, arrest, and abandonment issues, and of course these things all put children in worse straits. But in many committed gay families, there are two parents in the home - and the children are well adjusted and successful in school. In fact, a recent study showed that for the very best parental situation, one would need to be sure a child was raised by a pair of lesbians; these children turned out to be more well adjusted and have better IQ scores than their peers being raised by their own bio moms and dads.
The argument: It's not about Civil Rights. Gays should not be equated with the struggle of African Americans for their Civil Rights, they were never slaves. (Many cite Jesse Jackson here, or other African American leaders)
The response: Nonsense. It is about Civil Rights. Civil Rights means the rights accorded to each and every citizen of the United States being equal and across the board to all citizens. African Americans and gays and women and anyone else who's being denied equality under our Constitution. Thankfully, the black Civil Rights movement has greased these wheels considerably and provided a template so that other minority groups experiencing discrimination can achieve more equal treatment in decades rather than the centuries it took for African Americans to get as close as they have (though there's still a ways to go, there, too).
The argument: It's a slippery slope that will lead to incestuous marriage, or even bestiality in marriage. Just because a brother and sister feel that they are in love and want to marry, the law forbids it for good reasons. If Gay Marriage is allowed, then where will it end? Why not allow polygamy, too, for that matter?
Response:This is the most spurious argument of all, and it's just a ridiculous one. Gays want the same rights as straights. Incest will still be disallowed. Bestiality will still be disallowed. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways. The "slippery slope" is all in the minds of these poor people who are so afraid that their way of life is going to be threatened that they are grasping at whatever straw seems to be waving their way.
The argument: Why would traditional marriage be in Federal Law? - President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, 1996.4 If traditional marriage was wrong, why would one of our former presidents, with the support of the House of Representatives and Senate, sign it into law? Of course, the Federal government has made mistakes in the past on subjects such as slavery and suffrage. The difference is that slavery has been abolished and all Americans have the right to vote, while the Defense of Marriage Act is still in law.
Response:This one's just funny. Let's think about it. First of all, nobody, as far as anyone can see so far, has said that "traditional marriage is wrong." It's fine, for traditional couples. The reason the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law is because it was politically expedient at the time for Clinton to sign it into law; there was not the base of support for Gay Marriage that exists today. And, as the other person points out, The Federal Government "has made mistakes in the past, on slavery and suffrage." And is making a mistake here, too. The difference is that "slavery has been abolished and all Americans now have the right to vote." Those laws were wrong then, and this Defense of Marriage Act is just as wrong - we just haven't gotten to the point yet where it's politically expedient to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet. It's still in law. For now. But have no doubt that it will be abolished eventually, just as the others were. This person acts as if the fact that it hasn't happened yet is proof that it never should.
What many people against gay marriage don't understand is that we're not voting against YOUR marriage, so why are you voting against ours? If one woman marries another woman, is that going to effect your life? Just because it goes against YOUR religion doesn't necessarily mean it goes against a gay's religion. One of the ten amendments is freedom of religion, so technically, religion can't bend a law.
Some arguments ignorant straights might make are:
The argument: Society needs traditional marriage to promote new families and children who will become the leaders of the next generation. Same-sex marriage does not promote this. Rather, it promotes the wants of individuals.
Response:Many marriages produce no children at all, but are either childless or are home to adopted children. These marriages are no less marriage in the eyes of the federal government or of God (ask, "Don't you agree?"), and the parties to it have no fewer rights because the two married individuals failed to procreate - nor should they. Many same sex couples either produce natural children or adopt, create new families, and are no more self-serving to the individual than any opposite sex marriage, therefore should not receive any fewer rights, societal accordances or benefits.
The argument: Gay marriage robs a child of a two-parent family, and studies show that a child without one or the other parent is more likely to be stricken by poverty or drug abuse.
Response:Not supported by facts. Many children suffer the loss of one parent to all sorts of different causes: death, divorce (and one parent moves far away), drug abuse or abandonment by the parent. Conveniently, many opponents of gay marriage ignore the fact that there are far more children doing well who are not being raised by their natural mother and father in an intact marital situation than there are those languishing. The figures they cite are often relating to drug abuse, arrest, and abandonment issues, and of course these things all put children in worse straits. But in many committed gay families, there are two parents in the home - and the children are well adjusted and successful in school. In fact, a recent study showed that for the very best parental situation, one would need to be sure a child was raised by a pair of lesbians; these children turned out to be more well adjusted and have better IQ scores than their peers being raised by their own bio moms and dads.
The argument: It's not about Civil Rights. Gays should not be equated with the struggle of African Americans for their Civil Rights, they were never slaves. (Many cite Jesse Jackson here, or other African American leaders)
The response: Nonsense. It is about Civil Rights. Civil Rights means the rights accorded to each and every citizen of the United States being equal and across the board to all citizens. African Americans and gays and women and anyone else who's being denied equality under our Constitution. Thankfully, the black Civil Rights movement has greased these wheels considerably and provided a template so that other minority groups experiencing discrimination can achieve more equal treatment in decades rather than the centuries it took for African Americans to get as close as they have (though there's still a ways to go, there, too).
The argument: It's a slippery slope that will lead to incestuous marriage, or even bestiality in marriage. Just because a brother and sister feel that they are in love and want to marry, the law forbids it for good reasons. If Gay Marriage is allowed, then where will it end? Why not allow polygamy, too, for that matter?
Response:This is the most spurious argument of all, and it's just a ridiculous one. Gays want the same rights as straights. Incest will still be disallowed. Bestiality will still be disallowed. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways. The "slippery slope" is all in the minds of these poor people who are so afraid that their way of life is going to be threatened that they are grasping at whatever straw seems to be waving their way.
The argument: Why would traditional marriage be in Federal Law? - President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, 1996.4 If traditional marriage was wrong, why would one of our former presidents, with the support of the House of Representatives and Senate, sign it into law? Of course, the Federal government has made mistakes in the past on subjects such as slavery and suffrage. The difference is that slavery has been abolished and all Americans have the right to vote, while the Defense of Marriage Act is still in law.
Response:This one's just funny. Let's think about it. First of all, nobody, as far as anyone can see so far, has said that "traditional marriage is wrong." It's fine, for traditional couples. The reason the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law is because it was politically expedient at the time for Clinton to sign it into law; there was not the base of support for Gay Marriage that exists today. And, as the other person points out, The Federal Government "has made mistakes in the past, on slavery and suffrage." And is making a mistake here, too. The difference is that "slavery has been abolished and all Americans now have the right to vote." Those laws were wrong then, and this Defense of Marriage Act is just as wrong - we just haven't gotten to the point yet where it's politically expedient to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet. It's still in law. For now. But have no doubt that it will be abolished eventually, just as the others were. This person acts as if the fact that it hasn't happened yet is proof that it never should.
There is nothing wrong with gay marriage.
by xstarshineox January 31, 2008