Joan Knows: Same-sex marriage? DUH.

Being a relative newbie to political debate, when I first started looking at this issue, I didn't really delve into the viewpoints opposing mine. This question, to me, was a no-brainer. People who love each other ought to be able to legally marry and enjoy the protections and benefits of that arrangement, natch. I mean, one of the reasons people get so reached and rowdy about things they consider moral ground is that most people have an ingrained, unflappable sense of what they believe is right or wrong, and I believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry is simply right.

Because I'm trying to be neutral and open-minded, here, I went looking for 'why not?' People are so passionate about this issue that I hoped to find some reasoning that made sense to me for 'why not'.

I encountered a Pro/Con list for Same-Sex Marriage online, and I'd like to respond to the 'Con' list and invite readers to give me other viewpoints; because while fair in assumption based on the language flying around the media, I think this list as a basis for banning same-sex marriage is pretty weak. It should be noted that the aforementioned link also includes a simple and fairly comprehensive list of 'Pro' expressions that I can agree with, and the author takes no specific stance on the issue.

1. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. 

In Joan's estimation, then, those religions and their leaders specifically should be free to decline to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but this is not a reason for the nation or for individual states to ignore the recognition of a civil union, at the very least, of same-sex couples.

2. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. 

 Joan calls BS. If this is a real concern that should be addressed by law, let's make divorce illegal, and let's make getting married more difficult. Any straight couple of legal age with 35 bucks and the appropriate identification can get married and, with a little more money and a bit more paperwork, subsequently divorced. Where are the indignant picketers for changing laws to correct this affront to the definition and respect of the institution of marriage? Most people think throwaway unions are stupid and destructive, but don't get terribly fired up about preventing them, because this a matter the government should stay out of...right?

3. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. 

The definition of traditional family values has changed greatly over the last half century. If anything, allowing same-sex couples to marry will create and strengthen new traditional family values that already have a worthwhile place in society.

4. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). 

Seriously? I've heard this little rant spouted a few different ways and the first thing that comes to my mind is that it's insulting to suggest that a same-sex union is something so perverse or unnatural that it has to be compared with polygamy or bestiality. Same-sex couples are as human, as capable of love, commitment, fidelity and family values as any other human couple.

5. It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create. 

I believe that adults don't give children enough credit for figuring out gender roles and expectations of society - those expectations being another issue that has changed radically, whether you like it or not. I think that children can easily understand the wish for two people who love each other to marry, cohabitate and enjoy  their lives together, and children SHOULD be allowed to see the merit of those unions and have them explained and accepted as a normal part of life. When I think of all the things about marriage and couplehood that are more potentially confusing, traumatic and harder to explain than same-sex marriage, I scarcely see why anyone spends time debating this issue.

6. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. 

Joan is of the opinion that the 'gay lifestyle' is not some mysterious Bacchanalian island that you choose whether to live on or not. While not a part of any team having done 'a lot of research', I can only glean that the mentioned troubles are a result of the stress feelings of not 'belonging' to 'traditional society' and the real and imagined persecution that comes along with that.  To me it is simple - too simple? Perhaps. Love need not be legislated - love being among the best reasons for anyone to consider marriage. Everyone should have an equal chance to make it work or screw it up.

As an aside, please check out this short piece about where popular opinion falls lately:

Opinion: A Long, Winding Road to Marriage Equality
By DOROTHY SAMUELS Published: November 12, 2011 There has been progress, but this remains a country where discrimination against gays is enshrined in most state constitutions.