View threads

Featured Articles > Common reasons stated by conservative persons that homosexuals shouldn't get married.

Capital: They say that from a conservative perspective, if homosexual couples are allowed to be married, then the US citizens who pay taxes will have more of a tax burden because their tax dollars would fund benefits to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

After doing plenty of research, I have yet to find any benefits that federal taxes cover for married couples. I admit, I don't know a lot about taxes and benefits, and that's why I did so much research. The only benefits I found related to marriage were tax breaks for married couples. If this were the case, homosexual and heterosexual couples would both be given tax breaks.

Maybe our entire country would have to pay more taxes to cover the loss of taxes coming from married couples, but I don't think that that is any logical reason to discriminate against a group of people, especially a group of people who make up around 3.5% of the US population, according to US Census figures.

It would be illogical to think that covering the tax breaks given to 3.5% of the population would harm anyone's budget, and, I would like to think that a slight rise in taxes would be a good way of getting our nation out of the $9 trillion dollar deficit that we face currently. No one wants to see more taxes, admittedly, but no one wants to be discriminated against, either.

The minority of people must be represented in order for there to be equality in the United States, as our Declaration of Independence and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantee.

Gay couples can't have children: Lesbian couples can carry children and can become pregnant through en vitro fertilization. Gay men can create pregnancy through the same process with a surrogate mother. According to the 2000 US Census, there are nearly 416,000 children with gay parents in the US.

Homosexuality is unnatural: There are many things on Earth that are not natural. Many people use artificial means of enhancing their senses, such as glasses or a hearing aid. Man made fabrics, such as polyester, aren't natural. Automobiles aren't natural. No one discriminates against others and tells them that they can't be married because of their use or their doing of something unnatural based on those things, so why should they based on homosexuality. Beyond that, religion isn't natural, and it is already a protected class against discrimination. A person isn't born with a particular religion, though that person can be raised to become part of one. A person can choose what religion they want to be, and no one denies that person the right to be married, regardless of their religion. I don't know whether I am gay because I was born this way or because of something that happened while I was being raised. Regardless of whether it is a choice or not, clearly there isn't a reason for me to be discriminated against because of it, as race is natural and religion is not, and both are protected classes. Every religious denomination and every race is protected equally by our fourteenth amendment, showing that both natural and unnatural classes can and should be protected from discrimination, regardless of whether that class is made up of a very small base of people. Therefore, regardless of whether homosexuality is natural to many or unnatural to all but a minority, it still represents a minority of people who face discrimination by not being able to marry. By not being able to marry, these citizens are denied 1,138 rights and privileges that married heterosexual couples receive, according to the General Accounting Office of the United States in Washington, D.C.

Many conservatives say that using a "separate but equal" argument is not justifiable because homosexuals don't face the same discrimination that many faced during the times when "separate but equal" was common.

In the majority of US states (33), discrimination based on sexual orientation is still legitimate. Though I have never seen a sign saying that I am not allowed to dine in a restaurant or drink from a water fountain because of my sexuality, which may be due to the fact that one's sexuality is not as discernible a feature as one's race often is, it could happen and would be acceptable according to current law. If I applied for a job in any of the 33 states, I could be told that I was not being hired because I was gay. If I was hired and it was found out or suspected that I was gay, I could be fired. If I was hired and it was found out or suspected that I was gay, that would be a legitimate reason for an employer not to promote me to a higher ranking or higher paying position. If I was hired and it was found out or suspected that I was gay, legally, I could be paid less than someone who is heterosexual just because I am gay. Beyond employment laws, I can legally be denied housing by a landlord if he thinks or suspects that I am gay. I can legally be denied the ability to eat at a restaurant or purchase something from someone if the purveyor of said goods knows I am or even thinks that I may be gay. Beyond that, homosexuals are the third largest group of people whom hate crimes are performed against.

According to 2004 FBI statistics, 15.5% of all hate crimes are against someone because they are homosexual. 15.5% of all hate crimes happen to a group who make up 3.5% of the US population. Maybe I was wrong to use the phrase "separate but equal;" it seems a more accurate term would be "separate and unequal." I am treated like a second class citizen because of my sexual orientation. I, personally, have faced such discrimination and harassment based solely on the fact that I am gay. I, personally, have to live in fear for my life and safety when I walk across campus to my car in rural eastern Kentucky.

I, personally, am denied the ability to donate blood, because apparently the FDA believes that, just because I'm gay, I have HIV, and will pass it on, even though every single bag is screened. I, personally, have to wonder when and how next I will be told that I am not a person of the same caliber as a heterosexual person. I, personally, have been censored, when people refused to hang up the signs my organization created because the program the signs were promoting was about how homosexuality, morality, and diversity tie in with one another, and some people think that homosexuality is "wrong."

I have been told that people were denied the opportunity to attend this function based on the actions of individuals that go against what our country's and out university's founding doctrines guarantee me.

I don't know how it could be made any clearer that I am not equal and should be, than to say that I was created equal to all the other citizens in the United States, yet am not given equal treatment, equal privileges, and equal rights.

Some conservatives tell me that the only threat homosexuals face from an organization is from the KKK, and that AIDS is a much more prevalent threat to homosexuals.

Here are my problems with this argument:

1. The KKK is NOT the only group that is of threat to homosexuals. The KKK, Neo-Nazis, religious groups, and groups devoted solely to being anti-gay all have caused or have threatened to cause violence against homosexuals. Being openly gay in Iraq is a crime punishable by being hanged, as it is against the law based on religion, which is not separate from state. I suppose that I am pretty lucky that church and state are separate here in the US.
2. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the estimated number of AIDS cases for 2005 show that heterosexual African Americans have a higher rate of AIDS than homosexual men by around three thousand people. What's next then, telling African Americans they can't be married to people of their own ethnicity because they carry too much disease?

When asked how love affects homosexual marriage, one conservative said, "Love, however, is never mentioned in the constitution. Love is not a matter of constitutional law and must be disregarded as an argument in favor of gay marriage. The state is unconcerned if a married couple is in love. It cares that they can build up the world population, produce productive members of society, and provide a household estate, an entity which cannot only be taxed to provide revenue but which can also receive tax dollars to support the building of a family. Couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, who can not fulfill these aspects of marriage, should not receive the benefits thereof."

Again, I have several problems with this argument, listed below:

1. Love is not mentioned in the Constitution: I agree, love isn't ever mentioned in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. However, the pursuit of happiness is. Who is to say that one pursuing love isn't pursuing happiness? Love makes me happy, at least. My point is that love can't or shouldn't be disregarded as an argument in favor of homosexual marriage because the Declaration of Independence, one of our founding doctrines, states quite clearly that all citizens are created equally and that each citizen has the right to pursue what makes him or her happy, be that love, marriage, or both.
2. As mentioned prior, gay couples can, have, and do raise productive members of society.
3. If homosexuals were given the right to marry one another, then they could provide a household estate. You can't argue your point by saying that something beneficial isn't possible for someone because of the point you're trying to make.
4. Any couple, regardless of their ability to produce a family, whether because of mental defect, illness, biological disorder, or otherwise who can't produce children are allowed to be married. By saying that those who cannot shouldn't be allowed to be married, you are saying that heterosexual couples that are infertile, are mentally defunct, or are ill should be turned away from marriage because of that disability. Disability is already a recognized class that cannot be discriminated against in the United States. I say this because in the statement quoted above, the conservative person makes the point of saying that heterosexual couples that can't produce children shouldn't be given the benefits of marriage. I feel even the title of marriage is specifically important because of its social status and recognition; thus, it is of benefit, and the conservative makes the point that it shouldn't be bestowed upon couples who are disqualified from acts of discrimination by our Constitution. It takes the credibility and legitimacy away from someone when they say that a class already protected by the Constitution should lose its protection, and that a minority shouldn't receive a status of anti-discrimination.

Here are some other points I would like to make based on other's arguments:

According to the 2000 US Census, there are 658,711 unmarried homosexual couples living together residing in the United States. That means there are 1,317,422 homosexual persons who may be willing to get married. Many conservatives say that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Regardless of promiscuity, which I have never seen an unbiased source for a rate of in anyone's argument, that means more than one million people in the United States are facing discrimination based on their sexual orientation by not being allowed to marry.

According to the 2000 US Census, there are unmarried same sex couples in 99.6% of the counties in the United States. This figure doesn't account for single gay persons or for gay persons not living together. The fact that a large minority of counties in the United States are the only counties without gay couples living in them shows that homosexual rights and same sex marriage would affect someone almost everywhere in our entire country. These couples are also just that, couples.

Conservatives try to argue that homosexuals don't form couples, and would marry 200 partners causing the court systems to be jammed as the men divorce each other constantly to be married 199 more times. Clearly, it is evident that more than 1.3 million homosexuals are willing to not just form a relationship, but to build a life together by living in a household together. If that doesn't speak to promiscuity, then I don't know what does.

Being gay is unnatural: Though I touched on why that doesn't really matter above, since many people say being gay is wrong because it is unnatural, I would like to say more about it now. There were those who say that homosexuals weren't born that way and it was a choice. There were those who said that gay sex is wrong because the anus isn't meant for insertion. There were those who said that being gay is wrong because it was based on a hormonal imbalance.

To address each of those points, I would like to begin with the argument that homosexuals weren't born that way and it was a choice. First of all, this argument can't really go for either side. No one knows why people are gay. Since it hasn't been proven to be caused biologically doesn't mean that one can logically say that it isn't caused at birth. Also, since it hasn't been proven to be caused biologically means that no one can claim that he or she was born gay. Regardless, here is the information I can extent to you that isn't scientific fact in any way, but is absolutely based on what I have experienced. I have been verbally attacked for my sexuality. I have had to disappoint my parents and tell them that I am gay. I have had to come to terms with who I am and the fact that I just CAN'T be attracted to women. Trust me, I tried. I am different from heterosexual people, and I don't know why. No one knows why, so you can't just go around saying it's because of a hormonal imbalance. If it were that simple, where can I buy the hormones it takes to make me straight? I am happy with my life and with who I am, but, trust me, if it were my choice, I wouldn't go through all the pain and through all the tears that I have gone through that being gay has caused me. I don't want to have to live my life differently than heterosexuals.

I don't want to be discriminated against and not have any legal ramifications against the person who discriminates against me. I don't want to have my parents' not want to talk to be about my life or talk to me about much of anything. If I could be straight, at least at one point in time, I would have chosen to be. But I can't be.

Therapy is proven to cause more of a problem to homosexuals and often leads to suicide. There isn't a medication or a hormone to cure homosexuality, because homosexuality isn't regarded by the American Psychological Association as an illness, sickness, or disease. So, there is no cure for something that isn't a defect with someone. Don't try to say that hormones will CURE it. You can't cure something that isn't WRONG. Don't say that I CHOSE to be this way when I didn't CHOOSE to be this way. Maybe it is a choice for some people, but it isn't a choice for all of us. If it is simply a choice, choose to live gay for one day and see how much discrimination and funny looks you face. Try walking down the sidewalk holding someone of the same sex's hand. It isn't a choice for me or for most, plain and simple.

Let's talk for a moment about gay sex.

First of all, homosexuals have sex in much the same way that heterosexuals have sex. Sodomy, oral sex, and manual sex are all forms of sex that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have. All sodomy laws have been stricken, according to the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), though Virginia has yet to repeal this legislation. This case gave us all constitutional sexual privacy with a 6-3 vote of the justices.

Then there is lesbianism, which includes vaginal sex. Since no one argues that vaginal penetration is wrong, no one can say that sex between two lesbians is wrong. As for anal sex between males, I promise, it's not so bad. The prostate gland, which is located just inside the anus, is similar to the g-spot of women. Homosexual men aren't the only ones who penetrate the anus to get pleasure; plenty of heterosexual men do it, too. I think that something being there causes pleasure shows that homosexuality isn't unnatural at all, but, I digress, since, regardless of if it is natural or not, I have already shown why that argument doesn't matter.

Many conservative people respond to why they feel homosexuality is wrong with a religious argument. For the alternate perspective to the religious argument, and how homosexuality isn't wrong from a religious perspective, please read the information at the website www.godmademegay.com, which is a biblical affirmation of homosexuality written by Bruce Lowe, who is a graduate of Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas and of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. His ministry included the chaplaincy during World War II, pastorates in Louisiana, and teaching Bible at Louisiana College, Pineville. He left the ministry in 1966 and worked until retirement in the Office for Civil Rights of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. I think it has an interesting perspective written by a man who knows a lot about the Bible, and that perspective shows that homosexuality isn't wrong according to the Bible.

If churches aren't willing to marry people, or people aren't willing to be married by a church, a ceremony of marriage can be performed by a justice of peace. This means that marriage isn't a religious ceremony, necessarily. If churches aren't willing to marry homosexual people, then they shouldn't be barred from marriage, since it can be performed by the state without religious affiliation, and then homosexuals can receive the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive from being married. Capital isn't a grounds for discriminating against a group of people, never has been, and shouldn't be now.

Homosexuals being allowed to be married by a justice of the peace would in no way make a mockery of the ceremony, regardless of how long it has been around or how long it has been unchanged. While marriage isn't guaranteed by our Constitution, that doesn't mean that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry and heterosexuals should. The argument that "it's been this way for a long time so we shouldn't change it" doesn't work, legally, and never has, at least not in time. Beyond that, wedding laws changed in the past 40 years, when couples of different race were allowed to marry.

One Conservative person told me, "Take your civil unions and shut up." I'm not given the right to civil unions in Kentucky, or I would take it. I don't think it's equal, but it is a step in the right direction, especially if it is nationally recognized and extends the same benefits that marriage does. Civil unions at this time and same sex marriage currently don't offer federal benefits that marriage does, and, thus, are not equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

The same person also said, "How is marriage a right if certain couples must pass a blood test to be married?!": Though only a few states require a blood test, I would and I assume that most homosexuals would be willing to take a blood test if they were then allowed to be married.

He also asked, "How is it a right if there exists an age limit?": I again think that homosexuals, including myself, would be willing to marry someone else after they reached a certain age, if that right was extended to them. Currently, the age of consent in Kentucky is 16. I wouldn't want to date someone younger than 16, regardless, but, if I did, it would be illegal just like it is illegal for heterosexual couples, and it would be illegal to marry for both.

A very popular conservative argument is "How is it a right if one cannot marry his or her cousin/brother/sister/etc.?" Incest and homosexuality are two separate topics. I don't want to marry anyone who is related to me, and I don't think most homosexuals do, either. I know that this means that couples aren't always allowed to be married, but it also shows that couples who fit the type of relationship already able to marry only differ from homosexuals because one person of the relationship isn't of the opposite sex. The only discernible difference is gender. So, that to me seems like gender discrimination, which is already a protected class against discrimination.

Beyond that, incest is a medical problem that is usually committed by a male adult on a young girl. It means he has sex with a child. That is not consensual. That is in no way something that should be recognized as legal. Incest is created because of a mental defect or a lack of consensual sex, and leaves the victim with many mental problems. Homosexuality is between two consensual adults, isn't illegal, and isn't caused by mental defect or lack of sex. I don't see how they relate.

Bigamy and polygamy mean, essentially, marrying more than one person. Marriage isn't about having a committed relationship to many people. It means making a commitment to one person for the rest of your life. Homosexual marriage isn't going to give grounds to any such privileges because, as previously stated, same sex marriage is about the same things that heterosexual marriage is about, only with two persons of the same gender instead of different genders. Again, they don't compare any more than heterosexual marriage does.

Bestiality doesn't involve two consenting adults. In fact, it doesn't even involve two humans. Animals can't give consent, and animals can't sign a contract or wedding license. Homosexuality is again being reduced to a level that is consistent with the status of being second class citizens if people genuinely think that when two loving, consenting adults are given the privileges of marriage, so will animals. These two things don't even compare.

Bigotry is, at best, the only reason anyone would present these arguments against same sex marriage. It shows that people would bring out any point to try to get people on their side of the argument. Presenting these points shows that the only point made is one that scares people into thinking that homosexuality is wrong and disgusting. I am sure that homosexuality is wrong and disgusting for most heterosexuals. I am also pretty sure that heterosexuality is wrong and disgusting for most homosexuals. If homosexuals were the majority of people, which I doubt will ever happen, and heterosexuals weren't given the right to marry, I would expect the same outcry for support that I am trying to make now. But, homosexuals aren't the majority, and heterosexuals don't want to give homosexuals the same rights based on the objections that it is wrong, disgusting, and immoral.

You don't have to have morals to get married. You just have to be heterosexual, possibly pass a blood test, and not be related.

Posted by on Mar 7, 2008 at 3:39 pm