Gay Marriage

I have to say, I quite enjoyed reading my opponents opinion on the topic, as it was not something I was expecting at all, rather, an opinion that I could understand and agree with. However, I can't ever believe that straight couples would be willing to give up their government benefits in order to leave them with no marital advantage over gay couples. It is true that every person has the right to marry, but, it is not a right to marry a person of the same gender. Since it has been stated by many gay people and several psychiatric organisations throughout the nation that sexuality can not be changed, that leaves gay people with only other people of the same gender to be physically attracted to, and so only those people to have a lustful relationship with. Therefore, by the government not recognizing same-sex marriages, also leaves people with the impression that they do not approve of them because straight marriages are recognized. If straight marriages are recognized by the government, shouldn't gay ones be recognized also? If not, then no marriages whatsoever should be recognized because it is a restriction on the American people and one that the government shouldn't even have a preference in in the first place. I agree with your point that laws that cause restriction are definitely necessary, but do gay marriages cause people to be murdered, things to be stolen, or children to be sexually abused? Radicals might argue yes... but quite clearly, there is really no affect from a marriage to other people aside from the people involved in the relationship, the family of those people, and their potential children. I agree with your statement on liberty for this topic. My reference to justice was pointing out that the United States has not followed through with the constitution in court cases opposing marriage rights. California removed gay marriage as a right from their Declaration of Rights after the Prop 8 case, but, this violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. Each and every state that does not allow same-sex marriages violates this and so violates the constitution. Arguments on other debates over the issue were based on religion and the fact that God made women for men and that a relationship between two men or two women is not correct in God's eyes, and that it is a sin. People are allowed to hold their own religious beliefs, but in a country where religion is a freedom and a right, it is not a valid tool in an argument. I'm not saying that you used religion in an unconstitutional way to justify your opinion, rather, that other people have. For those reasons, I have to admit, that the popular opinion does not agree with my stance on the issue (and not exactly yours of keeping the government out of marriage completely either). Marriage laws actually were enforced in the Prop 8 case for the reason of "proscribing generally accepted conduct" since arguers that supported the marriage laws stated that it would teach children that gay marriages are okay. This said that if California continued to allow gays to marry other gays, then people would believe that it is normal, which is a bad thing. That statement was one of pure discrimination and supported the argument in court and so led to the reinstatement of marriage restrictions in California. Therefore, part of the purpose in not allowing gays to marry was to keep people believing that homosexuality is unnatural and morally wrong. Since sexuality is something that can not be changed, children are still going to grow up straight, bisexual, or gay, in equal proportions as they do now. Keeping gay marriage banned however, would only keep gay people closeted longer and more likely to be in denial or nonacceptance to themselves. It would make openly gay people more discriminated against and would leave their lives to be negatively impacted and looked down upon by society. Gay people are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Is that a statistic that we are aiming to keep and possibly increase? Obviously some people do. Of course gay couples wish to seek the financial advantages that straight couples gain from marriage, but it certainly is an issue of rights at the same time. The government of course does not have interest in paying for more married couples but has a duty to provide the right for a person to marry any person they chose. It definitely is arbitrary and discriminatory to reward married couples, especially when marriage has a definition as to what couples can take part in it. The purpose of marriage is for two people to make a promise to each other to love each other unconditionally and it is a bonding meaning that their relationship is to last. Gay people do not wish to "redefine" marriage as some might argue, rather, they fight for the right to declare their relationships to be full of unconditional love and to celebrate their love with a ceremony and a party. Marriage also is a foundation for the start of a family. Although, marriages lead to a family, that may be the purpose of the government in rewarding married couples with tax breaks. However, gay marriages lead to just as successful children as straight marriages, and, (although contradicting to popular belief) do not necessarily raise other gay children. Orphanages throughout the country and outside of the country are filled with children in need of families, so why would the government only encourage families with straight parents? I would agree with your statement on marriage being unconstitutional and not a government affair, but, as I stated before, I doubt straight couples would give up their tax breaks that the government provides for them. Regardless, I believe that either, way (in allowing gay couples to marry, or by eliminating government actions involving marriage) that an equality should be reached.