J
• -i4
■A
A broken bond
-w.
&
Same-Sex Marriages
J J. HARDER is a sophomore
broadcosting major anti a Daily
Nebraskan columnist
If there is one single overused
phrase in the ’90s, it has to be
“family values.” It has been beat to
death mere than “Show me the
money!” but unfortunately does not
have a star-studded movie to
accompany it.
We change the channel when we
hear the phrase on the news, laugh
when a politician mentions it, but
sigh when thinking of the good ol’
days when so-called “family values”
were in America’s homes. Family
values are not just a thing of the
past, long-forgotten in today’s
society and consumed by changing
lifestyles and modem changes — or
at least they shouldn’t be.
Families can be what they used
to, but many things are lessening
their true merit. Pre-marital sex, a
high divorce rate, adulterous activity
and cohabitation before marriage all
have contributed to the decline of
marital and familial stature. In our
politically correct, multi-cultural,
multi-lifestyle, don't-offend-anyone
world, one other road Mock has been
set up (Mi the highway to real family
values—homosexuality.
It has been wrongly accepted by
our society and has infiltrated our -
lives whether we have liked it or
not Them was a rumor that the e
childhood favorite “Sesame Street”
even considered making one of the *
beloved Bert and Ernie homosexual
to help children understand others’
supposed lifestyles. I’m sorry, but
hand puppets on PBS do not need to
be gay!
Many argue that homosexuality is
genetic rather than environmental
and that gays should not be dis
criminated against because they
have no choice but to go with their
congenital instinct and draw the
sexual intimacy of the same gender.
I counteract that argument by
pointing out that many things have
been priwen^o be genetic, such as
violent tendencies, Alzheimer’s and
heart disease — but they are not
treated as aspects of life to deal with
and accept.
Homosexuality is a situation to
overcane, and just like every other
temptation of the world, there is a
way to resist.
However, some have indeed
accepted homosexuality as a part of
their lives, and a portion of them do
wish to exist with a mate in a
monogamous relationship. Although
I do not agree with homosexuality
itself, I have to say that settling
down with one person is much better
than engaging in constant promiscu
ity.
So these monogamous lovers
treat their relationship as an
intimate union, one much like a
marriage — so much so that some
want to be allowed to be awarded a
legal certificate of marriage for
purposes of adoption, economics and
personal satisfaction. It is bad
enough that our world has come to
the conclusion that homosexuality is
unobjectionable, but we need to stop
further demoralization by supporting
the proposed bans on same-sex
marriages.
Allowing gay lovers to participate
in marriage is wrong because
marriage itself was created for man
and woman. Marriage is defined as
a relation between man and wife.
Some dictionaries that have suc
cumbed to the mighty wrath of
political correctness might define it
more loosely as an intimate or close
union, obviously making way for the
same-sex explosion.
Marriage was originally intended
to be the joining of a man and
woman into one; gay unions do not
fit that mold.
One of the primary purposes of
marriage is procreation. Initially,
one man and woman engaged in a
holy bond to reproduce and raise
their offspring. Intimate relations
between the two are just part of
forming a loving, caring family
atmosphere for their children.
Homosexuals cannot procreate
and therefore should not be allowed
to be married. A counterargument
calls attention to the fact that some
married couples are not able to have
kids for medical reasons and states
that those individuals should be
banned from taking part in marital
unison.
That position might seem valid
on the surface but ignores the fact
that those couples would like to have
children and are just physically
unable. Since their purpose was to
reproduce, their marriage is accept
able. Homosexuals might want to
reproduce as well, but their lack of
ability to bear children is because
their actions are unnatural.
Same-sex marriages will also
break the family down further.
Despite the fact that today’s families
are anything but model units, they
still hold their members together.
Families provide support and
encouragement as well as help in
times of trouble even if they are
dysfunctional. Single parent families
(like mine) fail to provide proper
role modeling and leadership to
their children, and families with
parents of the same sex have the
same characteristics.
Without sounding like a tear
jerking TV movie, it is possible to
overcome the adversity and triumph
despite the lack of dual parental
guidance, but it is much easier for
children when a mother and father
are present.
In the words of Sen. Jim Jensen,
“Marriage is the bond that keeps the
family together...” and same-sex
marriages will simply not keep
families together. Homosexuality
will blossom from these gay unions,
but children will be punished. Gay
people will cut costs for insurance
and taxes, but the family will suffer
tremendously.
Our elusive family values will
permanently succumb to the
demoralization of America. Homo
sexuality is not something that
should be protected and not dis
criminated against such as race or
gender, but is a plague that affects
many lost people. Our society needs
to come to the realization that
homosexuality is wrong, and the
first step in reverting back to
shunning the immoral act is
banning same-sex marriages.
Free to love
JKecently, state legislatures have
been introducing and passing laws
banning same-sex marriages. All of
this has been a response to one
Hawaiian judge’s ruling on the
issue. Circuit Court Judge Kevin
Chang ruled that the state’s govern
ment had failed to show a single
compelling or logical reason for
denying homosexual couples the
freedom to marry.
And each argument that is
proffered as “proof’ of the insidious
ness of homosexuality only furthers
my distaste for the current state of
some “American” ideals. Examina
tion of some of the arguments
reveals them to be fallacious and
downright discriminatory.
What I’ll attempt to do here is
present a point-counterpoint
discussion and expose Some inherent
weaknesses in opponents’ argu
ments. I’ll give a brief synopsis of
what an opponent might say, then
how I think the argument carries no
weight.
Genetics
Homosexuality may be genetic, but
it doesn’t mean we have to accept it
—since there are many other genetic
disorders (e.g. Alzheimer’s, heart dis
ease, etc.) that modem science is try
ing to alleviate. Just because it is ge
netic doesn’t mean we have to accept
and live with it.
Initially, this might seem to be an
argument that would dissuade some
one from supporting homosexuality
and same-sex marriages.
However, the way I interpret this
argument is that science wants to
eliminate some of these diseases. And
that’s what they are — diseases.
Homosexuality is not a disease. It
is not a condition in which one’s life
is at stake—in the same sense of heart
disease.
Moreover, finding a therapy for
Alzheimer’s disease would not be the
same thing as “curing” homosexual
ity. Alzheimer’s disease, or any other
disease, changes who you are. It trans
forms you from Being A to Being B.
On the other hand, homosexuality
is who you are. Although it does not
compose your entire make-up as a per
son, it is part of your being.
Being homosexual is analogous to
being bom a male or female, being
bom white or black. It would be ri
diculous for someone to say that ge
netic therapy should be used on these
particular segments—as it would be
“something one shouldn’t accept or
live with.”
Procreation
Homosexuals cannot procreate.
The intention of marriage is procre
ation, therefore homosexuals should
not be allowed to marry.
Ridiculous. There are married het
erosexual couples out there who,
through no fault of their own, biologi
cally cannot have children. Shouldn’t
we — to be consistent — deny them
the right to marry? Of course not.
But the opponents’ counter-argu
ment usually states that these couples’
intention was to procreate—they just
can’t — so it would be acceptable for
them to marry.
OK, but what about couples who
choose not to have kids? Some of my
friends are married and they have pro
fessed to never want to have kids.
Whether this becomes a reality is ir
relevant — but the fact of the matter
remains that they don’t want children.
Should they have been stopped before
they were married? NO.
Crumbling of civilization
Homosexuality has caused the
downfall of great civilizations — like
that of the Greeks. Same-sex mar
riages would just cause the further
crumbling of American morality and
put our civilization into a downward
spiral.
This is political scapegoatism at its
finest. Politicos in this country no
longer have communism, Japan or any
other foreign element to point to as a
threat. So in an effort to have an
agenda, they have chosen a group that
much of society is all too ready to
blame.
And to say that the Greek civiliza
tion collapsed because of homosexu
ality is as ridiculous as saying the Ti
tanic sank because it was transport
ing rich people.
Although homosexuality was a
part of Greek civilization, it wasn’t the
cause of its demise. Wouldn’t a more
probable cause be the barbaric hordes
and the rise of the Romans?
Civil Rights
This seems to be an argument that
opponents tend to gloss over or ignore.
They attach disclaimers such as I’m
not in favor of discrimination, but 1
am in favor of preserving the sanctity
of marriage.
But when you deny a segment of
the population the right to legally be
joined, it is discrimination. Just as it
was once true, and is partially true
today, that interracial marriages were
not accepted. But we don’t discrimi
nate against such unions. So why
should homosexuals not be allowed to
have same-sex marriages?
Allowing same-sex marriages
would not ruin the sanctity of mar
riage. Heterosexuals have done a good
job of destroying the covenant of mar
riage — without any help from exter
nal “forces” like homosexuals. In a
country where more than half of all
marriages end in divorce, I don’t think
we need to be blaming same-sex
couples for our disintegrating values.
And isn’t encouraging monogamy
among couples the ultimate goal?
Encouragement of monogamy could
only strengthen families — increas
ing the viability and “sanctity” of
marriage.
Regardless of the behavioral, reli
gious or genetic aspects of homosexu
ality and same-sex marriages, it all
boils down to' the legal and civil is
sues. Js there something wrong with
same-sex unions? No. When two
people enter into a relationship where
I_I
ANTHONY NGUYEN is a se
nior biochemistry and philosophy
major and the Daily Nebraskan opuh
ion editor.
upon they state their intention to be
together forever, I find it commend
able in any regard — whether it be a
hetero- or homosexual couple.
Additionally, there are other laws
out there that you might not support
— perhaps the speed limit—but try
to follow. Shouldn’t same-sex mar
riages be legitimized under the law at
the very least?
The civil rights of a segment of our
great democracy are at stake here. Are
we willing to discriminate against
people — who pose no threat to our
own families—because of a few poli
ticians who buy into the hysteria cre
ated by a few ultra-conservatives? f ,
can only reiterate that this is political
scapegoatism. Who would be next?
The buck has to stop here.
Allow same-sex marriages — it’s
the right thing to do. Love and under
standing is what we all need.