Reader's view: Amendment supporters' reasons are flawed
Those who want to amend Minnesota's Constitution to exclude gays from marrying do so for a variety of reasons. Each is flawed, in my opinion. Some claim the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate. They reason that since gays cannot produce c...
Those who want to amend Minnesota's Constitution to exclude gays from marrying do so for a variety of reasons. Each is flawed, in my opinion.
Some claim the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate. They reason that since gays cannot produce children, they should not be allowed to marry. This insults the thousands of Minnesotans who choose to marry but cannot have children because of age or medical conditions or who simply choose not to.
Others believe gays should not have the right to marry because it is immoral, as if it were more moral to be in a sexual relationship and unmarried. If something is immoral, it should be possible to show that someone is harmed by it. Who is harmed by allowing two committed adults the right to marry? The real harm occurs when gays are treated as if they were second-class citizens, unworthy of the benefits the rest of us get.
Some conclude gay marriage threatens marriage between a man and a woman. This has never made any sense to me. It's like saying that choosing to have a pet cat threatens those who prefer dogs. Huh? Straight and gay marriages can easily co-exist without either being threatened.
Perhaps the most forceful argument against gay marriage is that it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Of course, the Bible has been used to support many evils such as slavery, genocide, and keeping women submissive and out of power. Perhaps one should ask, "What would Jesus do?" I believe He would show compassion and love and vote against the marriage amendment -- assuming he brings proper identification.