Becca Lees

English
Dr. Mary Miles
Date
To The (mostly religious) People Who Oppose Equal Marriage
So, Im going to start off by saying: Im not trying to attack your religious beliefs or
impair your freedom of speech. If you think being gay is a sin, thats your business and I
certainly don't agree with you, but youre allowed to have it. However, most of the reasons Ive
heard against marriage equality are religious so let me say this: the United States is not a
theocracy. According to the Constitution, the government should not care whether same-sex and
otherwise non-straight marriage will anger God or whether it is against your religion. After all,
you do agree that people of other religions can get married here, don't you? And if your
particular Christian church doesnt want to marry Muslim people, they have the right not to. And
its the same for LGBTQ people. If your church disagrees with a certain type of marriage, they
will still have the right not to marry people fitting into that particular category.
Its pretty much the same logic for the it will ruin the sanctity of marriage and the it
will destroy our countrys morals argumentsI really don't see how letting atheists get married
is any different from letting all other people get married with respect to the first point. That
people who don't even believe in any sort of god are allowed to marry pretty much proves that, at
least in this country, marriage isnt seen as a pact with God. Instead its a legally valid contract
that has practical real-world applications. And marriage isnt like a pretentious early 19
th
century
country club where the more people are allowed in, the less value it has. Although a lot of people
do look at it the same way, choosing one aspect of a person (whether its race or sexuality) to
determine that persons worth as a human being and consequently decide what they can or cant
do based on that one characteristic.
As for the morality argument, youre right. It will change the countrys morals. Aside
from the fact that once again, the governments job is not to promote Christian morals, why is
that specific change in morals so wrong? Allowing non-straight people to marry would simply
promote the idea that, although you may disagree with someones lifestyle, (although, by the
way, being gay or transsexual is by no means a lifestyle, any more than being a man or being a
white person is) you can still treat them as equals and not ostracize them. And even if you
believe sexuality is a choice, why would you choose to be offended by love? Theyre not
choosing to be in love to hurt anyone, and they just want the same rights as everyone else.
Why is that such a bad thing?
Which brings me to civil unionsdoes the separate but equal philosophy ring any bells?
It led to the dehumanizing of African Americans and all kinds of rumors about how they carried
strange diseases and werent genetically equal to white people. And thats obviously not true.
Implying that non-straight people should be happy with civil unions is using the same argument
people in favor of segregation used, and it implies that they should be happy with whatever
rights we give them because were just being generous letting them have that much. Which is
dehumanizing.
So, what will you tell the children? Well, first of all, not knowing how to explain
something to children is no argument for making something illegalI mean, getting pregnant
isnt a crime, is it? And judging by the fact that many girls end up having children because they
believe standing on their heads after sex or jumping up and down a lot will prevent pregnancy,
lots of parents clearly have no idea how to explain the process of how to get pregnant to their
children. But still the government does not outlaw pregnancy. That being said, though, all you
have to do is say, you know Jimmy and John? Yeah, they love each other just like mommy and
daddy do. Its that simple. And even if you believe it is a sin, you can still explain to your
children that different people have different beliefs and that that is no reason to hate other people.
But what if you think marriage is for procreation? Well, is there a fertility test legally
required before people are allowed to get married? Is there a law preventing people who have
had no children and had a vasectomy or had their tubes tied from getting married? No. And many
married people choose not to have children. Even so, there is no chance of an unwanted
pregnancy with most non-straight couples, so no children will be brought into the world then
neglected due to the fact that the parents resent them for ruining their lives. All non-traditional
couples not able to procreate will have to prove theyre worthy of a child by going through the
rigorous adoption process, and then there will be the added benefit of a child getting to have a
family.
And if you think not having a strong female or male figure in their lives will ruin the
child, who says they wouldnt? Same-sex couples can have opposite-sex friends. Add to that the
fact that children with two straight parents don't always have a strong role model of both sexes,
and that children in one-parent homes can also grow up to be just fine, and that argument is kind
of a moot point. Plus, the world could do with more couples who don't have
childrenoverpopulation is a big problem.
Theres one more kind of silly argumentletting all humans marry the partner of their
choice wont lead to bestial marriages or anything like thatif two humans consent to marry
each other, it is legal. But a dog or anything else cant give legal consent, so it really isnt the
same thing.
But, overall, the biggest argument I hear, that is usually left unspokenits icky. You
might think that having sex with someone of the same sex, or having sex with anything but a
traditional male/female pairing is gross. And you can think that. But do you really want
everything a large number of people find disgusting to be outlawed?
Icky shouldnt equal illegal.