An Objective Retort of the Gay Rights Movement

The effort to create equality for all sexual orientations is one that has achieved an almost noble status in the nascent 21st Century United States. Many people are aghast at how homosexuals were beaten, murdered and slandered-and with just cause. Though many still find the homosexual lifestyle strange, there is no valid reason to commit such atrocities; each person deserves the freedom to decide their manner of peaceful lifestyle. The crown jewel of the Gay Rights Movement is the attainment of marriage rights. Despite the sympathy I hold for those homosexuals, I do not believe they ought to have the right to marry.

"What is this bigot talking about?" the reader may be asking. I am no bigot. I've lived my entire life next door to a gay couple-perhaps the most cordial, ebullient people in my neighborhood. Every family, including mine, used to attend their parties and festivities. There was never any trouble; everyone liked each other. I thought very fondly of those individuals. Let the reader forgo these indictments against my character.

Marriage was always an ecclesiastical and religious union. Only recently have governments begun to expropriate it for various purposes: hospital visitation rights, tax credits for dependents, insurance benefits, even a way for immigrants to get green-carded. Society has thus forgotten that it was first outlined in holy documents for religious purposes. In the Abrahamic religions-especially Christianity, in our case-declare that God decrees a holy union between man and woman. The love and reverence the two exhibit for their spouse are special and sanctified; the necessity of masculine and feminine when raising children is undeniable. While people are still allowed to have relationships uninitiated in any religious ceremony, marriage retains said consecration. Despite the constant bickering, marriage is, and always ought to be, a religious tradition. To get one one must meet special requirements, and if one doesn't fulfill them, one is ineligible. For anybody to expropriate marriage for nontraditional purposes is to destroy a sanctified and peaceful practice of the Church-excluded from state intervention by the 1st Amendment.

I fail to see why homosexuals feel that they are 'second-class citizens' because of current arrangements. Civil unions-despite my disagreement with them for reasons irrelevant here-have all the goodies and benefits of marriage. Feel free to actually look. This being true, why is this so? My only guess: it is the honor society bestows upon being a husband or a wife. Is it the official manner in which one declares "We love each other dearly"? Perhaps. Does it have to be legitimized that way? Can not two people who care for each other deeply simply be together? Is there some metaphysical love that is only formed when two people exchange rings and vows?

Lastly, the most important component of matrimony is the conception of new human beings and to raise them in an environment with natural representations of masculinity-the male-and femininity-the female. Should the belief that gender is genetic (meaning there's no proof; go check and feel free to correct me) be true, homosexuals can never bring themselves to want to participate in this process. Never will they bring forth new generations of humans because they don't have the instinct. If friends can be together, and brothers can be together, and business partners can be together, so should gays be allowed to be together. But, since gays want not the religious rite or its inherent responsibilities, why should they be allowed marriage? They should come up with a semantic equivalent, and then leave it be. If they still feel they are second-class citizens, so be it. They will never have, nor truly want to earn, the hallowed rite of holy matrimony.