|
|
GREAT AMERICAN THINK-OFF FINAL FOUR
ESSAYS FOR 2004
GO TO 2004 BIOGRAPHIES
Should Same Sex Marriage be Prohibited?
Robert Lerose
Uniondale, New York
Age 44 Occupation Writer
NO
We seek their advice on matters of dress, taste and style, in shows
like Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. We let them into our living rooms
every week, in programs like Will and Grace. We perform the plays they
write, in dramas like A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams.
We listen to the songs they sing, by artists like k.d. lang. We elect
them to high public office and ask them to lead us, as in the case of
Congressman Barney Frank. And finally, if they keep quiet, we let them
enlist and fight and sacrifice their lives defending our country.
We let gays participate in all these things, we accept their contributions
to our culture -- but we forbid them to swear lifelong devotion to their
partner through the vow of marriage.
I disagree. I don't think same-sex marriages should be prohibited.
Some people say that same-sex marriages will threaten, even destroy the
institution. How? How can the exclusive commitment of two people to each
other weaken the custom? Aren't the promises of fidelity and mutual obligation
two of its many strengths?
I agree that marriage is the one enduring institution common to all societies
throughout history. I find that comforting. Defenders of traditional marriage
argue that this stability is under attack.
But I think they miss the point. They make it sound as if marriage is
a fixed permanent state that never changes.
This simply isn't true.
Marriage can change without self-destructing. In fact, it already has.
If it hadn't changed, wives would still be considered property, husbands
could still legally rape their wives, and people of different races would
still be barred from marrying.
I believe we can change the definition of marriage without diminishing
the meaning. Marriage is an expansion of rights and liberties, not a contraction.
Today, it should expand to cover same-sex couples.
To me, America has always demonstrated a great capacity for change.
Declaring independence from Great Britain, shedding blood in the Civil
War, giving women the right to vote, recognizing black people's civil
rights -- these landmark achievements bestowed new rights and new prerogatives,
and our country is richer for it.
We all benefit when no one is excluded.
Allowing gays to marry endorses the idea that marriage is the unique cornerstone
of our civilization and the ultimate desirable expression of human devotion.
Allowing gays to marry makes it easier for couples to care for each other
by showering them with hundreds of legal protections and privileges, automatically
and exclusively, upon marriage.
Allowing gays to marry reinforces communities by recognizing and ratifying
their mutual agreement of responsibilities, obligations and expectations,
to each other and to society.
We all benefit when no one is excluded.
Our national tradition epitomizes the exploration of the frontiers of
freedom. In that tradition, I believe the time has come for same-sex couples
to gain the freedom to marry.
There are some who worry about the effects on children raised by same-sex
couples. I'm not sure what they're worried about. I suppose they consider
it ideal for kids to be brought up by a father and mother living together.
That sounds like a nice picture. Nice, but not completely realistic, as
the number of broken and abused families attests.
I can't speak to this ideal myself, having been raised by a single parent.
I grew up without a father. But I had a mother who loved me and an older
brother who guided me and an extended family of relatives who embraced
me.
I may have lacked a traditional family unit, but I was brought up in a
house filled with warmth and security and respect.
Who's to say that other children reared in other non-traditional families
won't be nurtured by the same kind of values?
As I see it, a straight household is no promise of virtue and a same-sex
household no proof of vice.
Lastly, when all the arguments have been made, when all the statistics
have been cited and all the experts have been quoted and all the trends
have been analyzed -- when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we
should see our way clear to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the
same, selfish primitive reasons that we do: to not be alone, to have a
steady source of comfort in our lives, to belong to someone who has promised
to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
After all, what else is marriage for?
GO TO 2004 BIOGRAPHIES
Jim Schantz
Luxemburg, WI
Age 68 Occupation Retired
YES
Should same-sex marriages be prohibited? Or, better, should same-sex
marriages be allowed? In the first century, B.C.,Cicero observed: "The
first bond of society is marriage; the next, our children; then, the whole
family and all things in common." What a profound observation.
It doesn't take much research to team that the heterosexual family has
been, and continues to be, the foundation of every society from Adam and
Eve forward. The union of male and female produce the next generation(s)
and perpetuate the human race. Marriage is defined in Funk & Wagnall's
New Comprehensive International Dictionary as "a compact entered
into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife."
From this union a family will naturally grow unless prevented by physical
conditions or choice.
God, the Creator, ordained that a man shall leave his father and mother
and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. The male and
female are specifically designed, physically, emotionally, and spiritually
for that union; not male-male nor female-female. Nature supplies ample
evidence that its beings reproduce their kinds through heterosexual relationships.
Only human beings seek to deviate from the God-designed and ordained heterosexual
relationships. And this deviance has been evident from earliest recorded
history, úthe Bible's book of Genesis. If a person seeks God's
wisdom concerning homosexuality, it is always condemned, as is all sexual
sin, for that matter. It is enlightening to note that in the first century,
A.D., Juvenal observed "Never does Nature say one thing and Wisdom
another."
So, why is it and what is it that brings us to this crossroads where the
time-honored institution of marriage is now supposed to be re-defined
to mean marriage between any consenting adults regardless of gender?
Well-organized groups which promote the gay agenda insist that gay marriage
is a matter of human rights and fairness and discrimination. Those who
oppose this view are tabled as hateful, homophobic and bigoted. They say
everyone has the "right to enjoy the "happiness" of marriage.
Still others point out the 50% divorce rate and frivolity of Britney Spears'
24 hour Las Vegas marriage. Therefore, cited failures and frivolities
of some heterosexual marriages justify allowing homosexual marriages.
Really! If one of society's foundational institutions is broken, shouldn't
society work to repair it rather than to diminish it by re-defining it
to mean anything a certain group demands? Family research shows that a
child does best in all aspects of life and society when raised in a one
Mom / one Dad family. A male cannot provide the role model that a mother
can, nor a female the role model of a father. (This is not a criticism
of those forced into single parent situations.)
Really, what are the true issues in this debate? For the homosexual community,
it's about legitimacy, benefits and approval of their lifestyle. For society
as a whole, the stakes are much higher. Looking into the future it is
not difficult to see the obvious path that marriage could take if re-defined.
If it is not reserved exclusively for heterosexual couples and its corresponding
benefits to society, then it must be open to everyone to be "fair."
How could "marriage" be denied to polygamists if fairness and
human rights are the criteria ? Couldn't bestiality advocates insist on
their marriage "rights” Etc.
Those who defend the time-honored definition of marriage as between one
man and one woman understand the shallow arguments and convoluted logic
of the marriage revisionists. They recognize that this is not about fairness
and human rights, liberal judges notwithstanding. They realize it is about
preserving our society, whose first bond is marriage; the next, our children;
then, the whole family and all things in common. Cicero's wisdom 21 centuries
ago is just as valid today as it was then. God help us if we destroy the
foundation of our society, marriage, by appeasing anyone or any group
intent on re-defining or otherwise destroying it.
GO
TO 2004 BIOGRAPHIES
Christy Hicks
Ferndale MI
Age 34 Occupation Educator
NO
Randy and Bob have been my neighbors for more than a decade. They
are a warm, compassionate couple who always make me feel welcome in their
home. When a new co-worker moved away from friends and family to take
a job in our city, Bob invited her to Thanksgiving dinner, to make sure
she wouldn't spend the holiday alone. Randy is a great listener, and is
always willing to chat about the challenges and celebrations of everyday
life. They are two of my best friends. In any discussion about what makes
a relationship successful, my thoughts immediately turn to Randy and Bob,
and how their positive partnership can provide valuable lessons to the
rest of us. Randy and Bob are my personal benchmark for how couples should
interact and be mutually supportive of each other.
For all intents and purposes, Randy and Bob have been living as a married
couple for as long as I've known them. Unfortunately, their union is unrecognized
by most of the institutions of our society, and they aren't afforded the
same legal protections that my husband and I take for granted. For example,
if either Randy or Bob were hospitalized with a life-threatening illness,
the person who knows them best could be denied the right to make their
medical decisions. They can't file their taxes as a married couple, even
though they own a home together. The benefits of the Family Leave Act
are unavailable to them. In 1997, Barry Bedrick, Associate General Counsel
at the United States General Accounting Office, published a 75-page document
that identifies 1049 different federal laws in which benefits, rights
and privileges are contingent upon marital status. Denying those rights
and privileges to any American citizen is both discriminatory and inhumane.
The recent proposal for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, defining
marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution, is an insult to the
premise upon which our country was founded. Amendments to the Constitution
have historically been created to protect the rights of American citizens,
not deny them. Since 1791, when the first ten amendments were adopted
as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has only been amended 17 times.
Those amendments have extended additional rights, such as freedom from
slavery, a guarantee of due process, and the right to vote. To create
an amendment that discriminates against a specific group of American citizens
would be a frightening precedent to set, and one that would put the rights
of ALL citizens at risk.
One of the strangest phrases I ve heard in the past few years is the Defense
of Marriage Act. How is it possible that marriage needs to be defended?
That phrase implies that there is something inherently weak or vulnerable
about the institution of marriage. Since a marriage is a commitment between
two people to love and support one another, it acts as a strengthening
force in our society. The strength of a marriage is created by the couple
that joins together, not by the force of law. The only marriage that any
of us can legitimately defend is our own, through our daily interactions
with our spouses.
Discrimination based upon sexual orientation extends beyond the denial
of legal rights, and into the very fabric of our humanity. Human beings
are social creatures. We build relationships with each other, and if we
re very fortunate, find a person with whom we can share a special bond
of emotional intimacy. A couple who publicly pledges their commitment
to a lifelong bond of mutual support is celebrated by family, friends
and community, with wishes that they will enjoy a happy life together.
As a society, we celebrate marriage because we believe in unconditional
love. Marriage may be the building block of the family, but love is the
foundation of marriage. Any two consenting adults who profess their love
for each other and a desire to commit themselves to each other must be
allowed the right to marry. It is inappropriate for our government to
attempt to apply legislation to love and commitment. Attempting to legislate
against marriage for one segment of our adult citizenry is equivalent
to telling that group that their love for each other is somehow less valuable
or authentic than heterosexual love. Love is simply love. It can't be
categorized, sorted or evaluated by human beings. It is the most powerful
positive force in the universe, and therefore something to be celebrated,
not legislated.
GO
TO 2004 BIOGRAPHIES
Sonja Hathaway
Grand Forks, ND
Age 20 Occupation A hard working student
YES
As a child I always heard that one day I would fall in love, marry,
and live happily ever after. Maybe there is something wrong with this
childhood tale or with our society because that is not the way it works.
People fall in love and then right back out again. I have always heard
the primary focus of marriage is a relationship between lovers. But with
all the struggles that people have with marriage, I can t help but wonder
Is there a purpose for marriage beyond just relationship and love?
The answer is a definite yes! Marriage was originally set up as a means
to populate the earth and to provide a stable environment to raise children.
If one is wondering who set this up and where in the world this information
comes from then check out Genesis. Of course this is a religious view
of marriage, and since I will not be spending much time on the religious
aspect, I will leave it here by stating that the religious views on marriage
include other moral implications and beliefs.
It must also be noted that within different cultures there are different
views of marriage; however, traditionally marriage has been viewed as
a contract between a man and a woman. In some cultures it is not only
the uniting of a man and woman, but the uniting of families, groups of
people, and even nations. In fact, in some cultures the best move politically
is to get married. But no matter what it s other merits and uses are,
most cultures agree that marriage is for creating and socializing children.
In looking at just our culture and its views of marriage, one can see
again the idea that marriage is for the purpose of creation and socialization
of children. It also plays a role in cultural stability.
Traditional marriage and not same sex marriage is considered the best
means of creation and socialization of children because men and women
complement one another. Physically men and women are designed in a way
that makes it possible to create children. Men and women also have proven
differences in the way they think and react to situations, which is one
of the strengths of traditional marriage. Although not all men and women
fit this, traditionally, men have provided protection and structure, while
women have provided nurture and defense. Men have protected the family
with finances and security; they have provided a structure based on the
cultural norms. Men also tend to be pragmatic about the world. They do
not focus just on the family and how they are doing; they focus outward
on the things that will affect the family. Women provide the nurture needed
for children to develop completely; women also provide a special kind
of defense for the children. Women tend to protect their children from
any outside interference even if they know their children are wrong. That
does not mean that they do not discipline their children, they just do
not allow others to discipline them. Women tend to look at the family
from a relational perspective. They are concerned with how (and if) every
one is getting along; they focus on the internal dynamics of the family.
It is important to have both of these perspectives. To only look inward
at the family relationships is to leave the family open to outside threats,
and to focus on the outward relationships is to leave the family open
to inward deterioration.
To have a strong family unit is to have a strong country. The strength
of ones country is based on the values, beliefs, and relationships of
the next generation. It is, therefore, important for that generation to
grow up in a strong home that provides not diversity of experience, but
security.
Looking at same sex marriages from an evolutionary or religious perspective,
we find that it is not acceptable under either point of view. From the
most religious view points, same sex marriage offends the Creator. From
an evolutionary perspective, same sex marriage does not promote the survival
of the species or the survival of the fittest.
I have focused on two reasons that same sex marriages should be prohibited.
The first reason is that it does not provide for the best possible socialization
of children. The second reason is it does not promote the continuation
of the species.
|
|
