In our society today we are threatened with the destruction of traditional families constantly. Politicians and Conservatives are quick to warn us of the woes that will fall upon our society if we were to allow swinging couples or, even worse, homosexuals from marrying. People claim that allowing homosexuals to marry will permit people to start marrying animals, and how it would affect the well-being of such children that live with such person. However, are these threats even logical?
The first claim, of the destruction of the traditional marriage, is quite odd as seeing that traditional marriages are…..well, not traditional. We are constantly evolving our ways of living with people. The most historically common marriage system involved one man marrying multiple women. These women had little to no power and were mainly used as sexual gratifiers, house cleaners, cooks, and people responsible for the upbringing of the children. However, we cut through this 'traditional' marriage and settled upon one man and one woman and deemed it more 'moral'. That's right, we deemed monogamy (which is quite non-traditional AND unnatural) as morally right and the only way to keep a happy and healthy family together. This new system of marriage was still flawed in our current views since the parents of the child would deem who the child would marry when they grew up, mainly to gain political or financial power to their family unit. One thing didn't change though; homosexuals were deemed second class citizens and were unable to get married.
Today we are faced with the challenging question (well, challenging to some) that makes us decide whether we will allow homosexuals to get married. Multiple conservative 'studies' have been produced showing the harm of such events, but actual scientists are quick to debunk their nonsense. Here are a handful of the thoughts….
1) Homosexuals will raise homosexual children.
This is just ridiculous, study after study shows that homosexuals raise children who grow up with their own personal sexual preferences. Just because homosexuals raise the child doesn't mean they will indoctrinate him into a gay lifestyle.
2) Homosexuals are an affront to the Christian marriage system.
Quite simply, who cares? We now know that a stunning 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. Even without this knowledge we know that this country was not founded upon the Christian theology at all and that 'all men were created equal'. Imagine the argument of this being pointed out upon African Americans (as it has) and upon Atheists (which I assume it will eventually).
3) Homosexuals cannot provide a stable environment for the child since a mother figure or father figure is missing.
Incorrect. Scientists debunked this one by finding that men actually have the tendency to share the same emotional characteristics of women, just as women can share the same emotional characteristics of men. Thus fore homosexuals can provide both role model figures as heterosexuals can.
The only negative aspect of homosexuals raising children is the fact that they are exposed to bigotry at such and early age, and that comes from conservative heterosexuals and their children. No matter how badly the average theologian wants to use such arguments it is clearly shown that parents are parents. An 18 year study of 2000 homosexual couples raising children showed that they are 'average' parents. Not better, nor worse…just the same as heterosexuals. Then what fucks up children? Simple, bad parenting and authoritarian parenting…and heterosexuals have a bigger chance of falling into such techniques.
Along side these arguments are the age old arguments about anal sex being unnatural, gays being sinners, and how if we'd allow gay marriage then we'd have no problem allowing people to marry animals. How odd this is to me, since I request facts for statements like these.
Anal sex is not an unnatural way to have intercourse. Romans took advantage of the anal cavity for its ability to be a form of contraception. If you ejaculate inside the anus of a man or woman there is a very low chance of an unwanted pregnancy. This practice continued for years to come, and is still used to this very day. So we can safely say that anal sex is just as unnatural as masturbation (which too was fought against by the Christian movement of the 1900's). Prudeness is not something we should ascribe to deem as moral.
Next is the thought that homosexuals, since they have homosexual sex, are sinners and are thusfore immoral. This is just ridiculous theological dribble and something that should be thrown out in a free society and ridiculed by the intellectual community. Christians, as it is well known, pick and choose what rules they derive from the Bible. Why not just choose not to pick this one? Perhaps because it gives a false sense of superiority? I do not know, but it matters not to me.
Last, we see the slippery slope fallacy of the animal marriage becoming legal if homosexuals can marry. The oddity here is that there are actually organizations that will allow both of your pets to get married, such as what Pam Anderson has had done ( http://www.tv.com/story/576.html ). Think of how the average homosexual feels about such headlines. It's like some bigoted person saying 'Sorry faggot, you aren't even equal to an animal.' No outcry came from Pam Anderson having her two dogs married or from any other pet lover having their pets married.
How can we, as a moral society, still view homosexuals as second class citizens? It makes absolutely no sense to me as how allowing two people of the same sex would actively affect a heterosexual couple's marriage. Perhaps one day we will grow and view homosexuals as equals, which will undoubtedly happen eventually. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long and that we won't adopt another minority as our cultures whipping boy.
