People against gay marriages say that it is not natural to be a homosexual. Even by ignoring the biological belief that homosexuals are born with a different sexual orientation, this is still an absurd argument. The world is full of "unnatural" things, but most of the time we just look the other way. Along with the development of civilization came the concept of tolerance.
It was not long ago that interracial marriages were considered taboo in our society. Many people thought those marriages were not "natural". In fact, interracial marriages were illegal in thirteen states until 1967 (So you want to know about gay marriage). Today if someone opposes an interracial marriage, the majority of the population would now say that the person is just a racist and needs to mind his own business. So why are gay marriages so different from that scenario?
Even if people are not born gay, why is it anyone's concern if they chose to live their life that way? A homosexual couple does not inflict physical harm on anyone who happens to see them together. Moreover, when someone is in public, can you tell who is married and who is not, just by looking at them? Why deny them the right to express their commitment to each other through the institution of marriage? If two people are gay and they want to be together, they are going to be together whether other people approve of the relationship or not.
President Bush has been trying to put into effect an amendment to ban gay marriages. If this were to happen, it would violate over 1,100 rights, protections, and benefits guaranteed to the citizens of the United States (Oppose the discriminatory "Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment). The Constitution has been amended seventeen times in the past; however, all of these cases were to PROTECT the rights and civil liberties, not to deny them (Oppose the Discriminatory "Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment"). With this it bring the exception of Prohibition, which took away the privilege of alcohol consumption. This amendment, however, was enacted to PROTECT our citizens, but was later repelled due to its ineffectiveness.
The amendment would actually have the cause of "defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman" (Oppose the Discriminatory "Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment"). However, the amendment that has been proposed not only defines marriage, but also denies things like hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and health care benefits (Oppose the Discriminatory "Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment").
Is it not ironic that the group that refers to themselves as "pro-family" are fighting to get this amendment passed? The government wants to pass an amendment that denies certain people to chance to build a family.
This leads to the subject of adoption. Who is to say that a homosexual is an unfit parent? People all over the world are criminals, addicts, and abusers, yet they are "allowed" to have families. As of today, only nineteen states allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt (Gay Rights).
In regards to the argument that a child needs both a mother and a father figure: what about all the people who are divorced, widowed, or have never had a spouse? Are those people to be considered unfit parents? There are other essential family figures such as grandparents, extended families, and close family friends.
Many anti-gay extremists tend to be very religious. They argue that it is said in the Bible that to be a homosexual is a sin. This argument is insignificant do to the fact that it is taken from the book of Leviticus which is written in the Old Testament. The New Testament however was then written and became the new...