Warning: The topic of this post is very heavily debated, and some may be offended. Reader’s discretion is advised.

Hello, and welcome to another Benaball blog post. Sit back, get some snacks. This will be a lengthy read.

This isn’t one of my regular posts, with me bringing up things that average teenagers get affected by. Take my most recent post for example, in which I analysed an article about a study that showed that the average Australian is a gamer… Go read it, it’s quite interesting.

I digress, however. This post is not one I would normally write, but given the current circumstances in not just the US but Australia, I thought I would shed some light on this subject: Marriage equality. A controversial topic to say the least, but has become a much more relevant discussion in the past 12 months due to it being passed within the American government. Australia has only just recently, up until this week, had a very heated debate on the subject on multiple fronts. This includes not only the government, but in protests and conferences involving religious and homosexual rights groups.

I myself have had a few discussions about this, in fact only just last night I had one with my parents: I was for it, while both of my parents were against it. That is because of their upbringing, sure. They are both Christians, they may not go to church any more but they still believe in the ideals of the religion. That’s fine, I don’t discriminate.

Moving on, though. That discussion caused me to do a lot more thinking, from a logical perspective. For the record, I’m an atheist, so if my views are very open minded (or closed minded, depending how you think), that is why. I like to eliminate bias in my arguments, woo!

So let’s begin with the most common arguments against the topic that I have heard. There are three main points that seem to be the most prominent for me. They are:

• When a gay couple want a child and have one (through whatever means), their “lifestyle” will impact on that child’s “choices.”
• Homosexual couples will influence others to turn to their “lifestyle” and hence it will create a snowball effect in future generations.
• Marriage is meant for “normal” people, as it gives children a Mum and a Dad.

These arguments you may agree with, depending upon your own ideals. I’m going analyse each one and evaluate, the best I can.

When a gay couple want a child and have one (through whatever means), their “lifestyle” will impact on that child’s “choices.”

Let’s picture this scenario. I have heard again and again that if a child were to walk in on two men or two women (parents or not) together in a room (fully clothed, get your mind out of the gutter xD), being a couple and having a moment, that child would get in their mind that that is the only and normal way people are meant to be, which is being with someone of the same gender. Sure, if the child was old enough to have some idea of a relationship, that could make sense. Right? No.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. A kid walks in on a man and a woman together, in the exact same scenario. Does the child think that is the only way to be? So in reality, the argument could be made against a heterosexual couple, in which their “lifestyle” impacts upon the child’s future. See how ridiculous this sounds? People don’t just decide to be gay, it’s comes about during puberty. You are either attracted to men or women, or both (props to you). It’s a natural thing that your body decides, not your self-conscience. If you want to know how your body does this, well… Google it.

Homosexual couples will influence others to turn to their “lifestyle” and hence it will create a snowball effect in future generations.

This one, oh man. Possibly the most flawed of the arguments, and it links in with the previous argument. As I said before, people don’t just choose to be gay. It isn’t decided by their experiences, but their body. And what is even more sad is that this makes homosexuality seem like a plague, or a virus. Being gay isn’t a lifestyle. It’s a natural thing that occurs in all species, not just humans.

Marriage is meant for “normal” people, as it gives children a Mum and a Dad.

Let’s begin this by saying that the current idea of marriage to the vast majority of people is it is a thing that couples do when they love each other, pure and simple. Marriage has had multiple purposes and definitions, and has mostly originated through religious means. Originally, for hundreds of years it symbolised the man’s ownership of a women. Thankfully, that isn’t the case in most cultures now. So if the underlying purpose of marriage is “love”, then why does it just have to be between a heterosexual couple only? Why can’t it be between a same-sex couple? And how are they not normal? They’re human beings!

In response to the second part of the argument, marriage doesn’t mean children are required. Quite a lot of people get married and don’t have children. Some physically can’t have children. According to an article from March 2013 on WashingtonPost, 48% of first children in the US are to parents that aren’t married. Sure, not all children are a product of love, but that isn’t what we are discussing. I guess what I am trying to put across here is that marriage is not permission to have children. So fundamentally, this argument is flawed in that only 52% of first births are the product of marriage, not 100%. But remember, this is about births; the parents aren’t necessarily heterosexual. The babies could be products of IVF and sperm donation. Thus the mother of the child may actually be in a relationship with another woman. Heck, the guy donating the sperm could be gay!

So overall, why is same-sex marriage not legal? It clearly has a place in our society, it is a real thing that should be embraced. The two problems that are preventing this from happening? Religion and the government. The legal systems decides these things, and religion is prominent within it. So the odds of it being approved: Slim to none.

My view on the question is simple: IT SHOULD BE A THING.

Let’s have a nice discussion in the comments, no hostility. And if you disagree, let me know, but be nice 🙂

Thank you for reading,

The Festologist.