The Supreme Court recently refused to hear five states' appeals to uphold their bans on same-sex marriage. This effectively legalized same-sex marriage in all five of those states -- Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin – and perhaps, will legalize it in six more.
Pending further hindrances, lifting the bans means same-sex couples can now legally wed in 30 of the 50 US states.
Americans have an abundance of national pride and consistently regard the US as the best nation in the world. But, fact remains that there are still 20 states where same-sex couples cannot be legally wed. How can this be?
How are homophobic attitudes still acceptable and prevalent in today's society? This stance has no place in modern society, deserves no voice or respect and should never be tolerated.
The people who hold these beliefs constitute nearly half of modern America.
Some even go so far as to say that gay people aren't afforded equal protection by the US Constitution
Yes, there are positive shifts in leadership, and we are headed in the right direction, but there should be no pushback against same-sex marriage -- at all. Texas Governor Rick Perry compared homosexuality to alcoholism... so there's that.
Since there is no specific clause in the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, what are the arguments? It may come from the Bible, but biblical arguments should not hold up in American Courts. Despite what some politicians practice and preach, it is unconstitutional to base any law on any faith.
Therefore, any arguments against the legality of same-sex marriage from a religious standpoint are legally irrelevant and should be immediately disqualified. Though this nails the coffin on all religion-based arguments, I will still discuss a few, in addition to other reasons.
Children Need Both A Female And Male Parent
That said, the first (and most secular) argument I'll address is that children simply need to have the influence of a male and female parent. Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School claims the following:
By 8 weeks of age, infants can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. This diversity, in itself, provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions — more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and children.
Following this line of thinking, it would seem that only males raised by heterosexual parents are capable of learning how to recognize and empathize with gendered nuances people experience in life. That this is the way a child can be as well adjusted as possible.
One Illinois Catholic organization chose to shut down its adoption center rather than allow gay parents to adopt, which was required in order to continue receiving state-funded aid. Apparently, to some, you’re better off raised in an orphanage than by same-sex parents.
Dr. Pruett goes on to make some of the most painful gender generalizations possible, as if all males and females are exactly alike. He claims,
Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity.
Apparently, all dads are sports-obsessed freaks who scream and cuss at the TV, while moms passively shake their heads as they cook dinner in the kitchen. Fathers are also apparently rule-breakers who "push limits," while mothers are the safer ones who "encourage security."
Yes, there are behavioral differences between men and women, even in the approaches they take to parenting. But, those differences differ from household to household, person to person.
Take, for example, Cameron and Mitchell from "Modern Family." While they are fictional characters, they are anything but typical representations of Dr. Pruett’s stereotypical male. They present a prime illustration of the sort of emotional and communicative diversity that Pruett argues isn’t possible in a same-sex marriage.
Cameron and Mitchell both possess qualities of stereotypical heterosexual relationships. Pruett states these qualities are crucial to a child’s development, so the child does not lack the sort of diverse “experience of contrasting relational interactions.”
Bottom line: There aren't just two categories of people. Maybe some homosexual couples don't do a flawless job of raising children -- neither do some heterosexual couples.
Because The Bible Says So
Consider that the Old Testament condones slavery. The fact that we ignore this, as a society, shows that some points in the bible are disregarded, and for good reason. They are no longer relevant and are even immoral in some cases.
So, why are the verses about homosexuality in the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus 18:22) still regarded by many as Holy Writ? It's curious why the verses about the sin of homosexuality are still valid to some people.
In fact, there are still heavily trafficked websites that adamantly claim that “homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible.”
Marriage Is For Procreation
Another common argument is that marriage is for procreation, and there are plenty of Bible verses that back this up.
Let's assume for a moment that this is good grounds for a legal ban on gay marriage (it's not). If marriage is for procreation, any marriage that could not produce offspring would be forbidden by God, right?
We can't stop there, though. Older couples whose reproductive days are behind them? They can't get married. Sterile people can't, either. You have a health defect that has rendered you impotent? Sorry. This would have to apply to everyone who is incapable of reproducing for any reason.
It doesn't matter how strong your emotional attachment is or how happy you make each other or how much you want to spend the rest of your life with a person. If you can't reproduce, then according to this argument, God doesn't want you to be married.
Michele Bachmann once discussed Arizona's recent anti-gay bill with Wolf Blitzer. I encourage you to watch the interview yourself, but I'll tell you the highlights of Congresswoman Bachmann's arguments.
It's easy because she only makes one argument. Apparently, the anti-gay bill is about tolerance:
We need to respect both sides, we need to respect both opinions. Just like we need to observe tolerance for the gay and lesbian community, we need to have tolerance for the community of people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs.... [Same-sex marriage] is a decided level of intolerance. It's effectively eviscerating the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, expression, and religious expression for the people of Arizona... We are treating people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs differently. What we're talking is tolerance on both sides and it is not tolerant to force people to violate their religious beliefs.
When Blitzer asked if she thought AZ Governor Jan Brewer would veto the anti-gay bill, Bachmann said she thought it would be vetoed, which would not uphold tolerance in the United States. Pardon me, but what the hell does she think tolerance is?
It seems that for Bachmann, tolerating the homosexual lifestyle means she just has to accept that homosexual individuals exist. However, when you turn the table, tolerance of anti-homosexual religious views involves passing a bill that disallows homosexuals the right to marry. Seems like some good ol' fashioned, two-way tolerance to me...
Apparently in Bachmann's imagination, if you give homosexuals an inch, they'll take a mile. Except, the inch is the right to be married, and the mile is the part where they immediately start forcing straight people to have gay sex.
By Bachmann's logic, we should tolerate ISIS because not doing so would be treating people "who hold sincerely-held religious beliefs" differently. It's not cool to "force people to violate their religious beliefs." It's intolerant not to tolerate ISIS, right?!
No. Tolerance constitutes allowing something to happen, regardless of your personal feelings or political biases. Therefore, it is tolerant for Bachmann and any nutjobs like her to allow homosexuals to marry.
It is also tolerant for homosexuals to understand that certain religious folks find their lifestyle sinful; tolerance does not, however, require them to not marry in order to appease those who otherwise disagree with their lifestyle.
Michele Bachmann is one person, yes, but there are many other politicians like her. Her overwhelming popularity has enabled her to spew bigotry and lies all over the country, feeding selectively retentive minds that are starving for affirmation. She is one person, but the problem is much bigger because of her and those like her.
It's A Choice
Lastly, because I have to address this, if you think being gay or lesbian is a choice or that you can "pray the gay away," you're an idiot. Because science.
Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels said,
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
This very true theory is what allows the anti-gay agenda to survive, and our refusal to use reason and compassion has allowed that lie to thrive.
This isn't just a social issue for media and political debate. There are lives being lost because of this intolerance, and it has to stop.
Read scientifically vetted articles about the biology behind homosexuality. Watch "Milk" or "Brokeback Mountain." Watch the documentary, "For the Bible Tells Me So," and see how that makes you feel. Research LGBT suicide statistics.
This isn't just about the right to marry -- it's much bigger than that. Ignorant intolerance that leads to the insufferable feelings of alienation is putting ropes around necks and guns in mouths.
America's prejudice toward homosexuals is killing innocent people who cannot and should not have to change who they are, and it should make us all sick.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Elite Daily.
Photo Courtesy: We Heart It