The debate over same sex marriage has been raging in the United States for some time now. However, what is the need for this debate?
One argument against same sex marriage is that it will trivialize the institution of marriage. This argument is honestly irrelevant. As it stands now, between 40 and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce anyway, how much more trivial can it be? Heterosexual marriage is already at the point that people enter into them and figure if they do not like it they can leave. Same sex marriage will not trivialize it any further than this.
Another argument is that same sex couples will not be able to parent their children in the same fashion that heterosexual couples can. What exactly is the difference that is being pointed out here? Single parents seem to do just fine in terms of how their children turn out in the end. If it is a matter of different perspectives that people are worried about in terms of same sex marriage, then single parents should not be allowed to raise their children either, which is of course absurd. There is another point that seems to support the idea of same sex couples parenting. With the world the way it is currently, the children of same sex couples will enter into a world of being more open minded to how other people see the world. They can also get role models of the opposite sex through their friends, neighbors, and other acquaintances throughout their life.
A third argument that one sees in many instances opposing same sex marriage is the argument that the children of same sex couples will somehow be treated differently throughout their development than the children of heterosexual couples. In all honesty, everyone is treated differently everyday based on ingrained stereotypes that exist in society. In the case of developmentally delayed children, are they not treated differently than children who are not? The case is the same for race or any other difference for that matter in children as it would be for the children of same sex couples.
In terms of the spreading and risk of STD’s such as HIV, heterosexual couples have the same chance of getting them if they engage in sexual intercourse with someone who is HIV positive as same sex couples. So the argument for the spread of STD’s is essentially another one that is irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage.
Finally, there is the argument that the idea of marriage is a religious one. Yes, the roots of marriage are founded in religious history. However, being a secular country, the legal recognition of a same sex couple in marriage should have no effect on the religious institution whatsoever. Churches need not participate in any same sex marriages if it is against their beliefs; turn the other cheek so to speak.
Same sex marriage should be allowed to exist within the current United States government and legal system. Under the strictest terms, marriage is the union of two people, who are we to deny those who love each other from entering into this union? There is really no downside to allowing it besides the fact that it goes against the normal paradigm, and going against what is “normal” is really not a crime, and should not be outlawed. When reason is applied to the topic of same sex marriage, there really is no justifiable argument against it. So there is only one possible conclusion, and that is, make it legal.