Saturday, August 4, 2012

GAY MARRIAGE?


I’m not sure what to think about the whole gay marriage, Chik-Fil-A thing.  Most people my age grew up in a time when being homosexual was anything but cool.  It was seen by most as morally wrong, perverse, or at the very least – pretty weird.  Forty or fifty years ago, any suggestion of homosexuals having the right to marry would have been just ludicrous to anybody outside of the gay community.

But that was then, and this is not.  Today tens of millions of people, especially older Americans and many devoted Christians, still see homosexuality as wrong.  A majority of us have changed with the times, however and now see it as either as a legitimate lifestyle choice or a natural state to which a certain percentage of the population is genetically predisposed.  Nowadays being gay is cool, or at least accepted, more often than not.  And I’m pretty OK with that.  I’ve got gay family members and gay friends, and I like them, and we get along just fine. 

However, I’m still kind of hung up on the marriage thing.  I guess a couple of thousand years of western culture, where marriage has always between a man and a woman, isn’t something you just toss away without some serious reflection.  I remember a few years back, asking a couple of my good gay friends (and they were a couple) if they were going to get married when it (briefly) had become legal in California.  They said they really weren’t interested; didn’t see what would be gained by it.  Well, you could say that about lots of straight couples too; many don’t see the point in getting married, and live together, unmarried, for decades. Yet many other gay couples, just as most straight couples, see marriage as the natural step to take in a mature relationship.  Not being able to take that step unfairly discriminates against them.

I think I see their point.  Unmarried gay couples don’t have all of the same legal, health care, and financial rights as their straight, married counterparts.  Furthermore, not being allowed to marry their partner denies them the social status – the pride, the respect – of being a married person.  So even though I personally have some qualms about gay marriage, it’s doesn’t make much difference to me, so who am I to object, to say what’s right and what’s wrong?


But it DOES really matter to a lot of people.  Their answer to that question is: God.  God says what’s right and what’s wrong, and his thoughts on this are clearly stated in the Bible.  Homosexuality is wrong, and marriage is between a man and a woman – period.  Well, I don’t agree with all their thoughts on God and the Bible, but then I don’t have the right to tell them what to think.  After all, a couple of thousand years of culture and morality and whatnot based on the Bible, you know.  Plus, the Founding Fathers of our country, while not all Christians, did all believe in God and most of what the Bible taught.   And up until the last 40 or 50 years, that’s where the vast majority of Americans stood as well.  So it’s not right, in my opinion, to simply say the religious right is just plain wrong and irrelevant to our times and to this issue.

As for the Chik-Fil-A mess, I haven’t followed it closely, but it seems to be a case where a person of sincere Christian belief is saying that he thinks gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God.  I don’t endorse his opinions, but I’m not sure what’s wrong with him expressing them.  I’m not aware of any efforts on his company’s part to discriminate against gay customers or employees, or to mount an effort to ban homosexuality in America or anything.  Maybe I’m naïve or just plain wrong, but I don’t see what all the hoopla is about.    

The bottom line is that a great many Americans see gay marriage as an absolute right, while a great many Americans see it as totally wrong.  Both sides (surprise!) interpret where you stand on the issue as a real litmus test of who you are.  Support gay marriage?  Aha – then you don’t believe in God!  Oppose gay marriage?  Ha – you’re a hater, a gay-basher! 

OF COURSE, it’s not nearly that simple.  And OF COURSE, few on these two sides are interested in seeing the other point of view, or finding a reasonable compromise.  But if they were….

What if we tweaked things so that gay couples could have the legal, financial, and otherwise equivalent rights of a marriage – without calling it marriage?  What if they could make end-of-life decisions for their partner, get their partner’s Social Security benefits – and all the other stuff that now may be within the rights of a married couple but not an unmarried gay couple?  What if we said: “Marriage is between a man and a woman, but we can have this other situation that’s called something else, with the same rights and obligations.”  I don’t know what you’d call it: legal life partners?  Whatever - would that option be so bad?

Sure, some of the hard-core religious right wouldn’t go for this, and neither would some of the more extreme gay-rights folks.  They’re right, the other guy’s wrong, and they’ll accept nothing less than their way.  Whatever…  But I bet that we could get maybe 80 or even 90% of all Americans to go:  “Look – it’s not perfect, I’m not happy with it, but I can live with it.” 

This 80 or 90% idea reminds me of something from economics (oh no!); it’s the concept of diminishing marginal benefit.  A good way to understand this is by considering pollution and the environment.  Suppose that the environment is badly polluted, and we’re trying to decide how and how much of it to clean up.  What’s going to happen is that some sources of environmental damage are relatively easy to fix, while others aren’t.  In a rational world (OK – we can dream, can't we?) it would probably go something like this:

There are some very big sources of air and water pollution that can be significantly lessened, and at not that great a cost.  Without going into specifics, we can make a few relatively cheap changes in how we do things and – as a result – let’s say we cut pollution levels by 50%, at a cost to America of only $50 billion.  Wow!  Not much question about whether we should do that or not, right?  Clearly, the benefit to the country will be much greater than the cost.  But what about the other 50%?  Well, let’s say we can get rid of another 25% of the pollution, but it’s going to be harder and more expensive to do.  So maybe it costs us $100 billion; twice as much money, to reduce pollution by half as much.  Should we do it?  Hmmm…. $100 billion’s a lot of money, but most of us would figure that it’s worth it to cut pollution by another 25%, so we’d almost certainly do that. 

Now, however, we’re left with the really tricky and expensive kinds of pollution to deal with.  So let’s say we can get rid of half the remaining pollution (12.5% of the original starting amount), but it’ll cost us $300 billion.  Geez – I dunno.  With the economy and the debt in such bad shape, is it worth it?  Is that extra 12.5% less pollution going to make enough difference to be worth $300 billion?  Think about what else we could do with $300 billion!  We’re going to have a lot of argument on this, but suppose we decide to go ahead.   That then leaves us with only 12.5% of our starting pollution, and man is it going to be tough getting rid of that!  Maybe $2 trillion tough.  And at that figure, few Americans are going to think it’s worth the price.  The benefit to society just isn’t equal to the cost, and so we’d almost certainly decide just to live with what is really a pretty good situation: we got rid of 87.5% of our pollution!  Yea!

It’s the same general idea with my proposal on gay marriage.  Nobody gets 100% of what they want because the cost of doing so would be just too great.  Imagine the damage to society and our political process if the religious right’s concerns were entirely ignored and gay marriage was aggressively promoted and celebrated across the land.  Imagine the damage if gay marriage – and homosexuality itself – were completely outlawed throughout our nation.  In either case, we’d have protest movements that make the Occupy thing look incredibly lame; we’d have God knows what kind of ugly division throughout the country; we’d have secession movements a la the 1860s.  It’s not worth it.

So how about we abandon the “it’s my way or the highway” approach, and find a reasonable compromise like the one I suggest?  Or some other compromise that allows us to move on as a country to things that really matter instead of being divided as we now are, basically 50/50 for and against gay marriage.  Because in truth, it’s not our decision on gay marriage that will decide the country’s future; whether we start working together and compromising, or remain polarized name-callers will decide that. 

37 comments:

Taylor Bird said...

First off I would like to state how much I love the approach on the essay, I’m glad someone is trying to find a middle point for these issues. There are quite a few points in this essay that you make that are really relevant, like when you reference to your friends and how they felt like it would not give them any benefit. I agree with this completely, I feel like marriage is just a title that is given to people and it gives no real benefits to people, besides being legally bound to someone, and having the title of Legally Married. I’m not against marriage it just seems like to much trouble to go through.

Skylar C said...

I completely agree with your Article, I have the same opinion. But not as strongly. I personally do not have a very strong opinion on this issue because it doesn’t effect me, but there are many others that have a problem with this, including friends I know, and when this issue effects people I care about, then I care. If I had to take sides I would lean more towards the allowing gay marriage to be legal, although I do understand why people would want it to be illegal, but all those reasons don’t effect themselves. If they believe its so wrong, then they don’t have to do it. But taking the rights away from others is wrong and if it doesn’t effect anyone in a negatively way, I don’t see the point of gay marriage being illegal.
-Skylar C

Leslie Briceno said...

Well reading this article I made many connections through out. I thought about how I was raised to think that gay couples were wrong, expect I never agreed with my parents. I actually didn’t mind, since it didn’t harm me in anyway. My parents told me it was wrong but when I asked why, they always answered that it’s just not right. Which for me isn’t exactly the right answer; they didn’t give me anymore explanations then that. My family isn’t very religious, I mean we do believe in god but we hardly ever go to church. So, when I think of gay marriage I don’t think of it as a sin, a will against god, or anything else. I see it as a couple that is going to make a huge decision in having an even more serious relationship. I think marriage is a huge step despite it being man and women, women and women, or men and men, it’s still something huge for anyone. Especially since there are quite a few things to do for it to occur. On the other hand, I see how others think it’s wrong, I mean it hasn’t been that long since gay couples started to appear more, compared to 50 years ago. People just haven’t gotten used to the whole idea of those with the same gender wanting to get married or be together. Especially religions, I don’t think they will ever accept it since the creation of humans was between a man and women, if they were ever to agree with gay marriage it would turn all religion to catastrophe for sure (it’ll go against the beginning of everything). But just like with science in the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, people can change and adjust to things; it’ll just take a while.
-Leslie Briceño

Pablo Kaprielian said...

After reading this article i completely agreed with it. I agree with your opinion but not so firmly. I think gay marriage should be legal because it doesn't really affect me and I think they deserve their rights. There are some points in the article that I can make connections with. A couple of my neighbors are gay and everyone seems to get along just fine. Even though things don't seem right and you don't like how they work out, I agree with you that we could get 80-90% of people to think: "nothing's perfect but we can still live with it"
-Pablo K.

Raley Slaymaker said...

First off, i would just like to say that i totally believe in gay marriage. My parents are lesbian and got married right when they could before it became illegal again. i think that we should just let this go. Their are way more important things to worry about right now. This is not one of them. I think that everybody should have the right to marry or love whoever they want. I think that it's a good idea that their are other options for marriage but why can't those options also be for straight people. I think that the religious bashing has gone a little too far and I think although they are entitled to their opinion they should not be so much of it. I think they should keep it quieter because i'm sure they wouldn't like it, if we did the same thing to them.

Karina said...

This issue is a very big one in our society for some people. It does not effect me as much as some of my close relatives and some friends, and knowing their strong feelings toward this topic also help to engage me in the importance of this. It is true, no one side will be content but that is just something that people will have to deal with. What difference does it make to your life if someone you don't know gets married? That is my side. If you do not like a certain group of people than you aren't obligated to associate yourself with them and thus it doesn't effect you life on the decisions they make in their private lives. This blog opened up some good points that I completely agree with.
-Karina Schulz

Eddie Ramirez said...

The approach you took on this topic was a neutral one, but it was understandable from both sides. I agree with you on the fact that with both die-hard Christians and the more outrageous homosexuals in this country it would be near impossible to have it just one way. Your economics scenario made it easier to understand what you were getting at, before that point I was a bit confused if you were still remaining neutral. I never thought about a compromise before this, but I agree with you on the fact that there needs to be one. While I personally think gay marriage should just be allowed, I thought your stance on the issue was a rational one that I can understand.

Jackie Beltran said...

I thought this was a great essay because it allowed the reader to make connections. The connection made to economics helped to clearly understand the idea of compromise. I have the same opinion on gay marriage because I see no harm in it. It’s simply marriage, two people coming together. It shouldn't be such a big issue with more important things going on. Everyone has their opinion which is fine, I just believe everyone deserves rights.

lea halvin said...

I agreed with almost everything you wrote about in this essay. I think you did a very good job of covering both sides of the issue, people who agree with gay marriage and people who disagree with it. The only thing I did not agree with is your proposal to give gays the right to have the benefits of a married couple without actually being "married". Although this might be useful, I find it humiliating gays would be put into a seperate category where they would only have half the rights we have. Overall, great blogpost.
-Lea Halvin

Lauren said...

I found your blog post very unbiased and fair in your representation of both sides. Your suggestion that gay couples could be 'legal life partners' instead of a marriage is a good compromise that shows you are conscious of the different sides of the issue. However, I would like to point out that that still isn't equal. It is still prejudiced to separate or make a distinction between gay and straight couples. One argument you used for those against gay marriage was religion. Regardless as to whether or not you are against gay marriage, I believe you don't have a right to vote on or take away someone else's rights. The separation of church and state bars that from being a valid argument as to why it should be illegal.

Mara said...

I have to say, although I respect your proposed compromise and your efforts to accommodate both sides, I disagree with your take on this. You say that “marriage has always between a man and a woman,” and it "isn't something you just toss away without some serious reflection,” but why not? Why does homosexual marriage take serious reflection, and a heterosexual marriage does not? No one has the right to choose what others do in their personal lives based on personal beliefs. This is an issue of basic rights; this is why personal opinions don’t matter. It’s an issue of making marriage more inclusive, instead of being a privilege for those who feel their relationships are more “normal” than others’. Your "legal life partners" solution isn't so bad, but the whole point is that two people love each other and want to marry, so let them, instead of trying to make them separate and unequal. Why are you trying to hold on to the notion of "this is our marriage, and this is their almost-marriage?" There would be absolutely no change to heterosexual lives at all if we allowed gay marriage. It's not hurting anyone.

Nichole Wilhite said...

Nichole says,
I love the fact you put both sides of the argument in your post. I like the compromise idea, so we can put the problem to bed as country and move on. The problem I have with compromise is this: it's like buying cooking that look and taste almost like Oreo but called cookies is not the same. No one wants cookies instead of Oreo. Giving someone cookies instead of Oreo is like saying you aren't worth the few extra cents it cost to give you Oreo specially when it you giving other kids oreos is like a slap in face. Also religion shouldn't be consider in the decision to allow gay people to marry because there is suppose to be a "separation" of church and state. although if the law is not written careful it could step on some toes. All in all it doesn't hurt anyone by a gay couple getting married

Haley Sweet said...

On this topic I can honestly say I am anything but unbiased, but I greatly appreciated the unbiased stance in the essay. I think that it's an interesting idea to give only legal right without the title of being "married", and while I can see this as a solution for some it will not be an appropriate solution for all. I really see marriage as an evolving concept(especially in the last 50 years)I mean the whole system started out as a way to pawn you daughters off on the man who wanted to give you the most goats, then somewhere along the line it became about love, but even then your partner should be you same race, or same religion and thus we are where we are today. So I don't tend to agree with the idea that it will cause massive social divides because it's simply a natural step.

Anonymous said...

Just because a person is gay does not mean that they have to suffer and be treated as outcasts. I agree with the stance given and agree how there will never be equality when it comes to decision making in America. Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people do because we are all people and all people should be equal when it comes to love and expressing it. Human beings deserve to be treated as equal and sexual orientation should have nothing to do with anaything, let alone marriage, except for who they choose as a spouse. Gay marriage, I feel like, is generally starting to become more and more accepted as modern society allows it and the "old Americans" word starts to become of lesser value to people. Equality is something that is extremely difficult, seemingly almost impossible, to achieve and I feel like more and more people may not mind gay marriage as much. It does not mean they are for it, but rather they do not care and can live with it.
-Trystan Colburn

Frieda Curtis said...

I think that society and culture are changing and progressing in a direction where being gay is more accepted, or even more "normal". I like that you suggest a compromise, but I could see why some people would be completely for or completely against it. Even so, hardly anyone seems to be willing to make a suggestion in the first place so I commend you for that. As time goes by it seems that more and more people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage being okay and I think that it a good sign for the progress of our society.

Zachary Zisser said...

Give people the freedoms that every individual is promised in america. seriously if we cant tell people not to have guns why can we tell them not to have gay marraige. the world is full of haters and lovers. haters tarnish the lovers on all the sides. my solution brainwash haters to be lovers and the world would sing. wasting time on topics such as this feels wrong when there are such larger isues going on around the world.

Anonymous said...

In reference to the blog, in the end, no one will get 100% of what they want because “the cost of doing so would be just too great”. There would be endless damage to society in reference to religious rights and the extent of rights to the gay community. It’s not worth one side winning over the other because it can only cause more harm than progress. Compromise is what is needed in the country, but the million dollar question is when will this “change” actually come? We have modernized as a society, and we should be making decisions that fit the time period.

-Haley Davis

Christina Schweighardt said...

I definitely agree with your opinion that there should be a middle ground. Of course, there will always be those people who do not think it is fair that they cant have the title of "marriage" which will then just bring the same and maybe even more controversial issues into question. I do not believe that a gay man or woman should not be given the same rights as a straight man or woman. However, if this were to be imposed, religious opinions and views will then be put down and a completely different issue will come up. In the end, if this matter could be resolved with a compromise it would have already been resolved.

Anonymous said...

I don't really agree with the compromise you were talking about. I think gay people should be aloud to do what they want with their lives and i think under no circumstances that any random Christians should have the right to tell gay people that they have no right to get married. They have so many excuses on why gays shouldn't be aloud to get married, but in the end it's just flat out discrimination.
-Isabel Roe

Emily said...

I really thought it was interesting that you brought up the fact that for your generation, being gay was considered a sort of taboo, and not encouraged or accepted. I think many students now forget about the feelings and how the older generations were brought up, and find themselves in a position of presentism being a problem. However, I also believe that with changing times, people must change as well, and just like we adapted to cell phones and technology, we have to adapt to social changes as well. I agree with you that gay marriage might not be that big of a deal, but I think the main reason it's so important to some gays is just so they can feel that being gay is the same as being straight, which to many, it is. I also believe that we should take steps before reaching gay marriage, because that's a big step to take immediately. I liked your 80-90% idea about giving the gay community most of what they want, but not all, but it reminded me of Truman with Poland, and his 85% plan, and I worry that, like Truman, the gay community won't win anything either.

Anonymous said...

This subject is very controversial because there are three different kinds of people that have three different points of views on this issue. First there are the religious who believe that same sex marriage is evil and god hates gays. Then there are those who believe they should have the right to marry and enjoy all the freedoms of a straight American and then there are the people who want to create solutions that will benefit both. However, the fact of the matter is that it is wrong to deny these rights to homosexuals. It is unconstitutional, but somehow we find ways around it like we did when we argued the moral issue of slavery. It is very similar, but of course less intense and less violent. We are so evolved as a society and we have a hard time accepting our differences. I agree that everyones right to preserve their lifestyle and happiness needs to be respected, but to what extent? Should our pursuit of happiness affect someone else's just because the general population finds it wrong or right? I feel like this essay extensively argued both sides and this is the first time I see a solution being offered rather than just repeating the problem.
-Leslie Simoni

Jared Creamer said...

I think that that this was a very well written and informative essay. I agree with the part about how Christians are against gay marriage because that is a very common belief in Christianity. I liked how you stated your position early on and you stayed with it throughout the essay. This essay made a lot of sense and it was very informative.

Anonymous said...

This blog on gay marriage is one that mad me realize that same sex relationships really don't have an impact on my life. So, I find it that government nor religion should make partners decide on their sexuality. Also, that if partners want to make a choice, they have the right to do what they want without having others opinions. Therefore, even if there is interventions within gay marriage, they will still go about and be together no matter what other people think.

-Karla Zuniga

Alex said...

People are too obsessed with the word “marriage.” Yes, marriage is something that is mentioned in the Bible from thousands of years ago, but now it has become something much more than just a man and a woman going to church. First of all, anybody can get married. A person who is getting married doesn't need to be religious. Why? Marriage, in this day and age, is a legal term and not one of the churches. Yes, a church started it but now the government has taken it over. Does God care whether you sign a paper saying you are married? Does God allow a couple to lose their virginity before they sign the dotted line? Yes? No? Overall I felt this issue faced the many of he logical issues associated with gay marriage, but dismissed many of the emotional ones.

Anonymous said...

The essay exemplified an open-minded approach and continued through till the end. Many valid points were made and I throughly appreciated the perspectives of normal people, homosexuals, government, and religion. The relevancy of this topic is very much on point and gives light to many of the unnoticed arguments. After reading the blog/essay, I can state that I am in agreement. I agree that religion is something that should not be forced onto others, and should not be involved. Secondly, I agree that government should not take away the right to be married to the same sex. It's THEIR CHOICE. Overall, a very well-rounded, informational essay which informs the reader on the current and ongoing dispute of gay marriage.

-Marisa Bagnas Period 2B

Lorenzo Wida said...

I agree with the main points of this Blog, like Gay people deserve all the rights in the world that the rest of us are able to get. I just don't find how calling it marriage is such a big deal. There are still going to be those that if we call it marriage or not are going to continue to hate gay people and everything that they stand for. The reason they want that title is so there are no things that in a real setting will make them different to any one else except for their sexual preference, by singling someone out or not allowing them to be the same is i believe discrimination. I enjoyed your opinion on this nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

i agree with just about everything stated in your blog, i have about the same thought/opinion as you. me personally i kind of don't care wether or not gay marriage is legal or not but i do care about the right to freely chose what an individual wants to do. therefore i believe people should get over this gay marriage thing and just let them to decide what they want to do because it does not effect straight people in any way.
-Lucas Hill

Brigid Moran said...

While reading this blog post, I appreciated your attempt to find a middle ground on the gay marriage issue. I agree that we’ve got much more important things to worry about in this country than whether a man can be married to another man, or a woman to another woman. The essay came from a much more neutral standpoint than my own, which made me disagree with several points. Personally, although I see where you’re coming from with your attempt at compromise, I think that the proposal to “just not call it marriage” brings up the whole separate-but-equal issue from Plessy v. Ferguson. While that case applied to discrimination based on race, I think it applies here. Sure, at first, it seems to be just a word—marriage. What’s the big deal? But denying the use of this word to gay people is discrimination.

Anonymous said...

Although I somewhat agree with the theory of middle ground, I have three issues with it - the first is that it's somewhat too idealistic and reminds me of the steps to the Civil War. The second is that it simply seems like there are either too many extremists, or too many people are being labeled as extremists, which makes it so that being labeled as an extremist would decrease public support. Finally - too many people see things as black and white, as opposed to black, white, and the multiple shades of grey in between, and due to the failure to consider such factors, people are often too idealistic.

Even then, if people commonly cite the Bible, then what's to say the Bible is correct? In the Bible, supposedly it says that marriage is between a man and a woman - what if it was meant to be figuratively, or psychologically, as opposed to physically? Furthermore, what if several thousand years ago, someone decided to create a "higher being" for the purpose of controlling the masses into doing his or her bidding? I believe that there should be nothing wrong with gay marriage unless studies show that gay marriage has a negative effect on children and society as a whole.

Additionally, I am at a loss as to why people can't temporarily pass gay marriage to see if it works out, and then if later evidence shows it doesn't work, simply outlaw it again - was this truly that different from Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education?

-Brian Lam

Anonymous said...

I do respect the points you have made because I truly agree. When you related to your friends I was able to make a connection to my friends as well. I also agree with the point that you approach of marriage being a big step and it is because you eventually are standing inside a church in the altar and making promises in front of god. Many people expect a marriage to be between a man and a woman. I think that is why everyone thinks gay marriage was wrong at one point of their life. Eventually gay marriage became legal .
- Georgina Zavala
Period 1B

Ethan Crick said...

America has separated church and government because there is a lot of different ethnicities in America. America needs to be free and open to change but it is difficult because it is hard for everyone. Gays should get the benefits they need with their partner and also being allowed to marry. In this essay we learn that if we change our beliefs about gay marriage we should on start small and only give the gays the benefits. I believe that marriage is special and should be experience by everyone gay or straight. I some what agree with this essay but I don't think we should stop in the middle point of the issue. In conclusion gays should be allowed to marry, America is the land of the free and we should be blinded from that fact.

Ingrid Olmstead said...

As far as the issue of gay marriage goes, there are so many more problems to think about in the world which we could be spending more time on. I personally believe that gay marriage only affects the people who wish to get married. There are plenty of straight people who use and abuse their rights while gay people are shut out and left behind. One of the points in the essay suggested that we should give gay people the same legal and financial benefits without the title. I think that it should just be taken one step further as it has no impact on anyone's lives except the couple's, but I feel that with all of the controversy surrounding the issue, it is a very good place to start.

Natalie Ashley-Hardy said...

Growing up with a gay uncle and a gay cousin, I feel strongly towards this issue. I don't even have to think twice about gay marriage and whether I agree with it or not. Yet, I realize I need to understand where others are coming from and why they disagree with it. I really like how you brought up the other side and how your generation and older generations feel towards the issue and why you feel the way you do. I am also not a religious person, so referring to the Bible is not an activity I partake in. I agree with everyone feeling equal in a society though, and if that means that we make a compromise, I feel like that should be okay.

Lizzie Hall said...

I share your belief that gay marriage should be legalized. You brought up some good points expressed by both pro gay rights and anti gay rights people. I do have a problem with one thing you talked about. The main argument for anti gay rights people is religion. The bible says that being gay is a sin, so religious people are saying gay marriage cannot be legalized. What about separation of church and state? I don’t understand how that argument is okay because it directly states that the law be changed because of what God said in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

The conflict of gay marriage can be very controversial. I liked how this article explored the issue from different points of view. It explained how a very religious person would see the issue and how a person who gre up with gay people would see the issue. I think it depends on how a person grows up that determines their view on gay marriage. If someone grows up being very religious, their views are more inclined to be against gay marriage. If they grow up around gay people, they are more inclined to be okay with gay marriage. I also liked how the article talked about a compromise for the dilemma. The compromise would benefit both parties because gay people would get the same rights as married couples and it won't be against the bible because it is not considered marriage. Of course people are going to be against this compromise but like the article said, nobody gets 100% of what they want.

-Marisol Oseguera

Anonymous said...

Gay marriage has never been an issue for me. Ive been raised with the idea that gay marriage is okay and till this day I beleive that there is nothing wrong with it. The way i see it is that essentially it is just two human beings that love each other. It is the same standards and the same love, the only thing that is different is the gender. I see through gender though and accept it. If gay marriage is legal it wont effect me so I really don't retaliate it. However my family is insanely liberal so im probably super biased, plus im not religious.
-Josh Hallmark

Anonymous said...

I love the essay although it did have some questionable points. This is the first time I have ever seen someone develop a compromise, however. The only point that raised eyebrows was the religious approach. One cannot use quotes from the bible written by men, not God, as solid evidence to support opposition to homosexuality. Saying that quotes from the Old Testament, which is the only part in the holy book where homosexuality is condemned, without invalidating the teachings of Jesus Christ. (The New Testament) The essay in total however brought up many good points and was very well written.

--Tristan E