Same-sex @ MindSay 
marriage
At first glance, same-sex marriage appears to be a textbook example of such an argument. However, on closer inspection, I find it difficult to even positively assess one side's viewpoint, let alone incorporate aspects of it within my own opinion.
Perhaps I should explain exactly what my view is.
My firm belief is that, in a utilitarian society (which, in most aspects, Western nations clearly resemble), the concept of enforcing a system that limits human rights, despite there being no evidence of the alternative causing significant personal harm or societal damage in any way, is absurd. And yet, this is the current situation in Australia - there is no universal legal recognition of same-sex couples, certainly not on equal par with that granted to heterosexual couples, should they choose to formally commit to each other.
I would like to address some of the major arguments opposing my view, to show just how weak the current governmental and societal paradigm is.
One such argument claims that, as marriage is primarily the domain of monogamous couples, and (most likely reflecting a lack of awareness about homosexuality on the arguer's part) that monogamy is not really an aspect of the 'gay' lifestyle. This assumption, even if it were true, is completely irrelevant - for, even if the majority of homosexuals did indeed prefer promiscuity, that is no reason to bar the remainder from exercising their desire to commit to the (theoretically) unconventional lifestyle. Indeed, if there was only one couple who desired to be legally united, I do not see why their rights should be denied because of the preferences of others.
Another argument states that marriage entails the right to parent children, and is thus inappropriate for homosexuals, as the ideal environment for a child to be raised is with two parents representing each sex. This proposition is seriously flawed, as it ignores the fact that single-parent families are far from uncommon in this day and age. One might counter that such a situation is far from ideal, but the fact remains that the law grants the single mother the right to be parent to her child - how then can it be logically argued that it would be less desirable if the single mother was replaced by two mothers, or two fathers?
Indeed, there is little logical basis to even suggest that heterosexual parents are in any way more adept at raising children than their homosexual counterparts. While it is true that heterosexual parenthood is the natural order, the fact is that advanced technology, changes in gender roles and highly available information give homosexual parents as much chance as heterosexual parents of raising children in a healthy, positive environment.
The last major argument appeals to religion, but I choose to discard this completely - after all, the tenet of the separation of church and state is one that predates this debate by centuries, and thus, religious opposition should have no impact on the making of laws.
In conclusion, there seems to be little, if any credence to arguments against same-sex marriage, and neither does there seem to be a reason why it is not yet a wholly accepted part of society. This is a situation that must change - and soon.
It's been a while, and as of right now I have no message of introduction or explanation of what has definitely been a long, difficult, BUSY year. God, I hate being a sophomore...just two more weeks. Anyway, I just want to post something I just wrote over on the NSHSS message board about same-sex marriage...Yes, it's a filler blog, but I've missed blogging so don't complain. Be happy for the temporary end of my silence...
While I don't claim to have read all entries of this topic (13 pages...jeez), I have definitely read enough to feel I can contribute a somewhat new view to the conversation (though I apologize if this has been said previously).
Focusing on the "issue," which is the concept of same-sex marriages, not the influences, stereotypes,and religious controversy that surrounds homosexuality in itself, there can be several clear arguments on both sides.
In the con list, same-sex marriage argues their legal rights without considering so much that the institution of marriage is grounded in the church, which follows the bible, which states homosexuality as a sin (yet also not stating that it is wrong for them to get married-this is simply assumed).
That being said, no offense meant to the church but whether or not they like it, marriage is no longer the property of religion (civil ceremonies-happen all the time)but more under the dominion of the government (of course the legal rights and such).
Earlier there were opposing views stated on the government's moral clause and how this affects the laws of the country. It would be absurd to think that ethnics and morality play absolutely no role, or ,otherwise, the court system would be a joke; yet there is a fine line when it comes to certain freedoms denied to some that are admitted to others, a sort of "selective freedom" you might term it as.
Especially when there is such a dividing line of opinion, we can't simply rule with the majority and leave out so many million others. This is where my "pro" mind comes to action for same-sex marriage. It admittedly seems very peculiar that there is this mindset of gay marriage abusing the sanctity of marriage, but this is ridiculous. In such modern times when divorce and short, Las Vegas marriages run rampant, it would seem refreshing to see to people so committed to each other as to flout conviction in a way, perhaps even losing friends and family in the process, just to marry the person they love and want to have a normal family life with.
Just in cased anyone is confused, I approve of same-sex marriage. I see no point in apposing something that does not affect me yet means so much to others. I do believe, however, that there can be a compromise.
With respect to the church and the religious groups who definitely won't quit and who truly believe in that married gays are in abomination in the eyes of the lord, I promote civil unions with all the legal rights of marriage, family, and adoption (which I'm sure has been said already). Unfortunately, to all those who are homosexual but are also very active in the process of religion and are close with God but don't want to give up a lifestyle that he/she was born to, they will simply have to bear it. Life isn't exactly easy for a gay monotheist...
But what do I know? I'm not gay or religious. I certainly don't have my sights set on politics. I'm simply a person with an opinion, and it kills me to see the deterioration of our country based on what I view as petty argument, perhaps not tidily or easily, solved but simply resolved through compromise, sacrifice, respect, and understanding of those who are different, not necessarily in their identity but in opinion.
P.S. Don't think me naive. I'm sure the situation is far more complex, but I just don't see how.
Mother Nature or Father Time has decreed that we procreate or we perish. Same rules are for "humans" as they are for animals. Our "religion" has taken this on (or vice versa) by speaking against homosexuality, whether because it is a non-procreator or it's an abomination. But I'm no student of the subject; we'd have to ask J Sweitzer or Bardsinister. However, as a man with a family and growing up in the '20s, '30s and '40s, I have a morality instilled in me by my grandparents and parents that can't accept same-sex copulation. Again, observe the animals....ever see such displays?
We have to recognize, tho, that with the present generation there are oh-so-many who want to buck present manners and morality. We've given them the money to do it with, but we don't have to rollover and give in to them. Let's keep our families safe and on the road they've been kept to for the past millenia. Let's not give in to this 20th century aberration.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/dpm23/samesexmarriage/blah.html