Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

If two people love each other, what right do politicians have to tell them they can’t get married? What right do they have to impose their beliefs on the rest of society? Same-sex marriage does not affect straight people so why do they care? It’s a private affair that is no one else’s business. It doesn’t harm anyone or have any negative effects. So what’s the problem?

Opposition mainly comes from religious and/or conservative people. They argue that it is an attack on the institution of marriage. Their points are fundamentally flawed. Firstly, how is a group of people requesting the right to marry, an attack on marriage? Surely it would strengthen it? It is argued that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because something is old does not mean it is good. Polygamy (more than one wife) also dates back into history, but that does not justify it. For most of history the wife was subject to the husband, often seen as little more than the husbands’ property. The idea of husband and wife as equals goes against the traditional definition of marriage, should it too be opposed?

Another argument is that marriage is for the purpose of making and raising children. However this is absurd. Does that mean infertile couples cannot marry? Once a couple decides not to have anymore children must they get divorced? What about couples that are too old for children? What about single parents and non-married people who decide to raise children without marriage?

It is also argued that homosexuality and lesbianism is unnatural. This ignores the fact that homosexuality and lesbianism is found in almost all animal species. It has been recorded among humans as far back as ancient times. It should be noted that marriage is not found among any other animals, does that make it unnatural? This argument can be taken to absurd lengths. For example for thousands of years transport was defined as a person travelling with the aid of a horse. However the automobile redefined the concept of travel. After all automobiles are unnatural, God didn’t give Adam and Eve cars, should we not use them?

Same-sex marriage is often described as a civil rights issue. This is true, after all marriage used to be defined as between a man and a woman of the same race. It was defended by religious and conservatives, but liberals managed to change the definition. This battle is still ongoing; the lines have just changed slightly. Quite a lot of opposition comes from bigotry. You cannot choose who you do or do not love, just as you cannot choose to be gay or straight. Blaming someone for being gay is blaming them for something they have no control over, it’s just the way they were born.

Here in Ireland we have civil unions which give homosexuals and lesbians most of the rights that married couples have. I would argue that we should go the rest of the way and give them full rights and call it marriage to. This may require a constitutional amendment as Article 41 states “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack.” I think this would have an excellent chance of passing as an overwhelming majority of Irish people are in favour of same-sex marriage. It would make up for Ireland’s terrible history regarding homosexuality which was only decriminalised in 1993.

Simply, if you don’t like same-sex marriage, look away. It doesn’t hurt you or anyone else so leave it be. Don’t force your beliefs upon others. Straight people don’t have to pass a test in order to get married so why should homosexuals or lesbians? I want to finish off with some good signs I found at


Filed under Politics

27 responses to “Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

  1. I agree totally. It’s always interesting to me what the struggles for equality look like in other countries. Ours in the US seem like they must be so far out of the norm as to be laughable in other countries. It saddens me that that’s not so. And I think you chose your pictures well, they are great.

  2. Tafacory

    I agree with you 100%. There simply are not any good reasons for opposing gay marriage. Gay people do not ruin children, gay people are not sinners, and gay people are not terribly immoral and depraved beings. And the historical reason fails as well. Slavery was a long held tradition, but we did away with that, didn’t we? What about lack of universal suffrage? What about human rights in general? Just because something has been around for a long time doesn’t exclude it from criticism and revision. And there’s scientific evidence that rebukes the claim that homosexuals cannot “properly” raise a child. As far as the research goes, gay parents do just as good of a job, if not better, compared to straight parents. Cheers.

  3. Yeah, the pictures are great.
    I wish the religious (let’s face it, it’s them holding this back) would accept that they’ve done their duty and warned us that homosexuality is a sin. OK, we heard you, we’ve given your advice due consideration, and now we’re going to ignore it. We’re free to go to hell if we want to.

  4. Hej Robert,

    Thank you for interesting and provocative article. I would like to address some of the issues brought up.

    Before I begin, I would openly say that I do love and respect gays (I do have friends that are gays) and would fight for their right but I do still did not get good argument why the government should allow same-sex union to be view as marriage.

    Governments do impose what is civil right to the society and I believe they have that right to. Two people loving each other, as 15 years old boy and girl, are cannot marry. 17 years old girl and 25 years man cannot marry. Two siblings, a brother and a sister 18 years of age cannot marry. A Father cannot marry her daughter even if they love each other. I believe a good government will impose the laws that are beneficial for the health, wealth and well being of its society.

    We all impose our beliefs on the rest of the society. One fighting for same-sex marriage is imposing her beliefs to the rest of the society as much as the one opposing it.

    Many things are found natural in animal species, like rape, killing of their babies et cetera. It would be so dangerous to build our morality on what is natural to animal species.

    We are not born sexually broken, it is a choice. This choice may be influence by biological factor or environment factor. But it is wrong to think that genes predestine our actions. If we take this line, then thus gay-hater, incest, murder, rapist, would argue that their genes predestine them to do so.

    I do not blame a gay person because I believe I could have being one given his/her position. I am sexually broken; I lust after a sexy woman passing, as a teen, pornography and masturbation ruled me. I cannot blame gay but I can only love them, care for them and I believe that in Christ, we can all find sexual healing.

    It is not about liking same-sex marriage, Robert, but is it a morally right. Whether I like it or not, it does not matter. It does hurt all of us, those who are for and against it. We are to force our beliefs, Robert, upon others, if and only if our beliefs are morally correct and right. You are forcing your belief, Robert, the belief that “People should not force their beliefs upon others”. Gay forces their beliefs upon others namely “same-sex marriage is okay” and Non-gay also forces their belief upon others namely “same-sex marriage is not okay” ☺

    I believe true Christian ought to first truly and loving love gay, hug them, and share everything with them. Show that Christians, as I am, also struggle with sexual brokenness, and are in no better position, before they can address this issue.

    My gay friends know that I truly love them, first and foremost, but I do not agree with their sexual lifestyle. When love comes first, disagreement follows in its right and proper place.


    • Thanks for the detailed reply. However I don’t think you’re right to say I’m forcing my beliefs on others. If you dislike same-sex marriage don’t have one. If you do, then do. I would see this as a position of freedom, in which both sides are free to do what they wish and are not harming the others. Nobody is forced to get married, but gay people are prevented from doing so. In that way the conservative view of marriage is forced upon them.

      My comment about homosexuality in animals was not proposing we should mimic animals or become more like them, but rather to counter the claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

      The reason we do not allow children to marry is that they are not mature enough to make such an important decision and to prevent possible exploitation if one partner is much older. Relatives do not marry because of the implications of inbreeding. Neither of these cases are applicable regarding same-sex marriage.

      I think its highly offensive to refer to homosexuals and lesbians as “sexually broken”. This implies you think there is something wrong with their actions. Broken means something is not working the way it should. I know you apply the term to yourself as well and I don’t think you intended any offense.

      While it is good that you respect gay people, what do you mean when you say same-sex marriage “does hurt all of us”?

      • Thank you Robert for a thoughtful reply.

        If you dislike x, don’t do/have x. If you like x, then do x. If our society would function in this paradigm, I believe it would be a dangerous society. I do not think its about emotions, Robert. How I feel[(dis)like] about x is a subjective and has not use to anyone but me. The question is, is action x morally objective right to do. Whether I like or dislike does not matter.

        Image I said to you, if you do dislike torturing children, then do not, If you do, then do because I see this as a position of freedom. Preference(like/dislike) has nothing to do with morality(values-good/bad and duties-right/wrong)

        Gay and non-Gay have the same right namely the right to marry an opposite gender of a given age. What Gay are prevented from doing is the some thing non-gays are prevented from doing, to marry a person of the same gender. Under the law that prevent relatives who want to get married but not having children, or three or more (poly) married is the defining of what marriage is.

        When sodomy (practice both by gay and heterosexual) or a woman playing a man(using sex toy) is been labeled as not natural because male/female bodies are design to compliment. According to design analis-organ is used to remove waste. When used for another purpose, e.g. sodomy then anal-rectal tumors, enteritis, proctitis, proctocolitis and warts, or papillomas(cause by Human Papillomavirus) are health problem that may rise.

        The Washington Blade, homosexual newspaper, Roundy wrote: “A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV.”(Bill Roundy, “STDs Up Among Gay Men: CDC Says Rise is Due to HIV Misperceptions,” (December 8, 2000))

        Andrew Grulich, a doctor in Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health contended that, “most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies.”(Richard A. Zmuda, “Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men,” Cancer News (August 17, 2000).)

        This concerns both homosexual and heterosexual who practice sodomy. Using analis in not natural way.

        Animals are driven by instinct. A dog in heat would mount anything, couch, tree, shoes, or another male dog. It is contra- design. I do not like to use “natural” word when I speak to my gay friends because I believe it has taken a negative tune with it.

        It hurts all of because homosexual are one of us(heterosexual). When they are hurt, we are hurt. There health is our health. No man is an island. It is may hope that we respect them, stand up against those who hate them, love them, hug them and show that we are no better.

        Pro-gay ought to be allow, and encourage to give reasons why the definition of marriage as one man-woman union should be redefine and how gay-marriage will insure healthy, wealthy and well being of the society.

        What do you think Robert?


        • Prayson, everything you are saying would also be ground to disallow any heterosexual activity. Your point is that gay sex is unhealthy. There are many negative biological and social repercussions as a result of heterosexual sex. Homosexuality is not an issue of morality any more than heterosexuality is.

          When you compare a consensual adult relationship to child torture, pedophilia, incest, or any other despicable act, then the problem seems to lie with your definitions. To equate homosexuality with physical or sexual assault is, quite frankly, the tactics of a bigot.

          Gays and “non-gays” do not have the same rights. Which is namely, the right to enter into a marriage relationship with the person of their choosing.

          Anal sex is an act and has nothing to do with sexual orientation (as you yourself pointed out). There are plenty of people who are straight who practice a.s., there are plenty of homosexual men who don’t practice a.s., and there are whole populations of lesbian women who probably have never practiced it. To use it as a rebuttal against homosexuality is ridiculous. By the same logic no heterosexual people should be legally allowed to have anything but safe sex using condoms and procreation should only occur using artificial insemination.

          I am tired of people who say things like “I respect gay people” and then proceed to write a small dissertation about why they are immoral, akin to child torturers, like dogs, and how they are harming all of society. You do not respect gay people. Giving them a “hug” and telling them “it’s OK, we love you in spite of your immorality” isn’t respect, its condescension. Own your discrimination if you are going to have it and quit acting like it is all in an effort to provide gay people with a better way.

          • Hello Philipotts,

            I am dearly sorry that I was not understood. The heatthy issue was directed to natural issue and why it hurts all of us. Remember that, Philipotts that I point it to both heterosexual and homosexual sodomy.

            Philipotts, I believe its unfair to kill a discuss by throwing in a sacre cow, bigot. I love my wife, I respect her but we disagree on a lot of issue, e.g. Streaming online TV shows, politics of war and poverty. In love, disagreement are placed in their proper place.

            It would be an absurd society if any one could enter into a relationship with the person of their choising. If I use your reasoning this will also justify incest, polygamy, and under age e.t.c.

            I am deeply sorry for other people who pretend to love gay yet in their writing, talk, and actions tell a different story. If you are gay, Philipotts, I want you to know that I dearly love you no more no less as I would to a non-gay.

            If Christ Jesus could love a radical deprave sinner like me, who would probabily be gay if placed in the same nature and nurture surrounding gays, how dare I not love gay who are bearers of God’s image? I am a chief of sinner, I dare not think myself morally better. Far it be from me.

            Yet I believe we could discuss and disagree on our sexuality with respect, gentleness and love. Philipotts, I am dearly sorry if I gave a wrong meaning and I will say again “I love you, Philipotts”, and me disagree on this issue will not change my love, care, respect amd concern I have to my dear brothers and sisters in homosexual community.

            In Christ,

  5. “It would be an absurd society if any one could enter into a relationship with the person of their choising. If I use your reasoning this will also justify incest, polygamy, and under age e.t.c.”

    Here you are again comparing a consensual adult relationship to abusive sexual relationships in which there are clear victims and perpetrators.

    This is like me saying that allowing a heterosexual couple to have sex is the exact same thing as rape.

    If you can’t see how incredibly HATEFUL that is, then you need to open your eyes.

    • Thank you Philipotts,

      How is incest and polygamy an abusive sexual relationships?

      Remember if we argue that everyone has to have the right to enter into a relationship with the person of their choosing, Philipotts, how can we then say no to consensual adults relative or more than two adults who have chose to enter a relationship.

      All consensual adults have a right to enter relationship with the person of their choosing given that this person fulfills a given conditions(i.e gender, age, e.t.c )

      Rape is a forced sexual intercourse against the one’s, the act is committed to, will. It can be heterosexual,or homosexual in nature. Simply do not see the connection, your making, Philipotts. Help me understand🙂


  6. Most cases of incest, polygamy, (and all cases of pedophilia) are situations in which typically one person is exerting their will over the will of another or in which offspring can be effected.To practice polygamy, incest, or pedophilia is illegal in the United States.

    A homosexual relationship is between two consenting adults and is completely legal. By not allowing them to marry, we are denying them their basic civil rights.

    “All consensual adults have a right to enter relationship with the person of their choosing given that this person fulfills a given conditions(i.e gender, age, e.t.c )”

    And again, statements quit being true when you have to add qualifiers to them.

    • Even if you are correct, Philipotss, that most incest and polygamy relationship involve exerting ones will over another will, why would that remove the rights of loving consenting adults incest(without children) or polygamy relationship?

      But all basic civil rights have qualifiers Philipotts(I am not allowed to have two wives) . Every consensual adult is allowed to marry. Both consensual homosexual and heterosexual has a right to marry only one consensual person of opposite gender who is not a family.

      Homosexual wants a right which no one has. In societies that homosexual marriage is not allowed, both homosexual and heterosexual have no rights to marry a person of the same gender.

      Given your argument Philipotts: “[Every consensual adult has to have ] “right to enter into a marriage relationship with the person of their choosing” what would you say to two loving consensual relatives who want to get married but will not have children? What would you say to three consensual loving people who want to get married? Does your argument have qualifiers?


      • Yes, I do believe that my argument has qualifiers. The qualifier is “who is the relationship hurting”. Homosexual relationships hurt no one, incest does hurt others. There is no sexual orientation that causes someone to only be attracted to only siblings.

  7. These are different arguments. You began from a standpoint of immorality and about homosexuality being unnatural. You also claimed that no rights were being denied to the homosexual community. I have explained my opinion and stance. Disagree with it all you like and keep talking in hypotheticals and semantics. We are not going to change each other’s minds.

    • Hej Philipotts,

      My aim is not to change your mind or opinion but to challenge each others reasoning and tests the truthfulness of our opinions.

      Our brothers and sisters in homosexual community are asking for a right which none has, namely marring a person of the same gender. Both homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual have equal right to marry only one adult person who is not a family member nor of the same gender.

      I believe it is fair for homosexuals to give reasons(that would excude polygamy, relative et cetera) why they should be given an extra-right that neitherr heterosexual nor bisexual have.

      Philipotts,I believe its time we think, and take about this issue, bringing light and not heat into this debate that does and is changing our society.


  8. We (as heterosexuals) also have the right to pursue happiness by marrying a person of the opposite gender. This is my point. A gay couple marrying does nothing to impede my basic civil rights, but not allowing them to marry does everything to impede on theirs.

    What you are saying is verbally and technically true, but it is not intellectually honest. You are skirting the issue of person’s basic right to a happiness that does not interfere with the happiness of others.

    Thanks for the dialogue.


    • Thank you so much Phil for everything.

      • I suppose its probably too late to restart this debate (sorry I was abroad for the last month). So far the debate has been about the technical issues such as rights and other hypothetical questions? Putting that to one side for a moment, allow me to be blunt and ask what exactly you dislike about homosexuality? Do you find it immoral or what is the basis for your disagreement with it? I personally see nothing wrong with it (funnily enough a friend came out a few days ago and neither me nor any of my friends were the least bit bother) and as it doesnt bother me, I feel they should be left alone. But my question is, in what exactly do you find wrong about homosexuality?

  9. I love this. Spawned really good discussion too. I’m a huge supporter of marriage equality legislation here in America, and it’s always good to see new viewpoints. One of my favorite commentaries on the whole “Is being gay a choice?” thing is this great video by Travis Nuckolls and Chris Baker that asks, “When did you choose to be straight?”

  10. ivan1971

    ‘Don’t force your beliefs upon others.’

    When it comes to redefining the sacrament of marriage as the unnatural union of two people of the same sex, then the gay minority can’t assume that there won’t be an opposing and vocal viewpoint.

    • Its not a redefinition, marriage was always about 2 people who love each other. Even so, is a redefinition a bad thing? Marriage used to mean the women was the property of a man, that has now been redefined.

      Homosexuality is not unnatural, it has been observed in most animals and among humans for thousands of years.

      Also most people who support same-sex marriage are straight.

      You didn’t address the fundamental of the point, if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry another man. Why right do you have to block something that does not affect you?

  11. Robert,

    You gave no support for your arguments. How many times did you ask me to support what I believe. When what I believe is traditional, historic, and NON-discriminatory.

    You believe we should change society and the definition of marriage. You believe this would be better for me. You claimed it would not affect me.


    Prove it to me.


  12. Reblogged this on thewordpressghost and commented:

    You stated your belief. That is not the same as ‘making your case.’

    You have asked that society discriminate against my Religion in order to redefine marriage.

    Let us lay aside the damage which is being done to my freedom to practice my Religion, let us focus upon your need to support your claim.

    As the advocate for change, you have the burden to show discriminating for gay couples will not discriminate against people like me; that it will not hurt people like me; that it will not injure children; and that it will benefit the gay couples you claim it will help.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s