Here was my most recent assignment description:
You will be given a button that says “Support Gay Rights.” You decide whether you will wear the button or not, it is up to you. Regardless, you will write a one page paper describing your decision of whether or not to wear the button and how that affected you. How did people react to the button? Were there some times that you felt more comfortable wearing the button? What does this say about how gay people may feel? Reflect on what the button means to you. If you do not know what “Gay Rights” are, how can you find out?
Notice how they pointed out that "gay rights," as they have defined it, are factual, definable rights that I could go look up somewhere rather than showing openness for discussion.
And my reflection:
|The button, minus the |
"Support Gay Rights" caption
This issue is divisive on a number of levels, as our conversations and the film we watched have shown. The film focused on the idea that those who oppose changing the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage get their arguments from the Bible.
I’m here to object to that stereotype, as I have reasons beyond the ones proposed in the film that oppose gay marriage and the adoption of children that often follows. As someone who will be married in about a month, I will point out that I don’t consider marriage a “right” or something that I’m entitled to just because I’m in love with someone of the opposite sex.
Marriage is a foundational building block of our society, as well as virtually every society (non-Judeo-Christian and Judeo-Christian, alike) that has formed in our world. Men and women exist on this Earth as counterpart human beings, not just because of their sexual organs and typical attraction to each other, but because of their biological attributes that complement each other. True, one reason that marriage exists and that the government recognizes it with so many tax and other benefits, is because most marriage unions result in bringing children into the world and into our society.
“Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage,” wrote atheist Adam Kolasinksi. My fellow students may argue that lesbian unions can result in children through artificial insemination. Not only do I believe that removes the beauty of what sex was intended to be from the act of creating a child, but the argument fails to address the fact that we have seen ample evidence to support the need for both a male and female parental unit (anecdotally, David Popenoe's Life Without Father presents a clear message on this topic).
I wish someone would answer the question why free birth control and increased access to abortion are so often supported with the argument that they aim to prevent the increase in single parent homes. There is so much research to support the benefit of a two-parent, dual gender role home in the context of the alternative of a single parent home, but the same doesn’t apply when the topic of same sex marriage and same sex adoption arises.
This is the most comprehensive study to date on the subject of same sex parenthood. It clearly shows that adults 18-39 who grew up in same-sex parent homes have an increased likelihood of smoking, getting arrested, pleading guilty, being on public assistance, being unemployed, to have recently thought about suicide (and many other things), and are less likely to have perceived themselves safe or secure as a child than those who were raised in an "intact" traditional mother-father parent family.
|From the above-linked study|
It’s a rich issue that is open to a lot of discussion, albeit unfortunately divisive discussion. The only “reaction” I can report is that which I faced when I shared with my shoulder partners in class about why I would not wear the pin.
I understand that this is the currently popular position and that my fellow classmates hear the word “rights” and throw their hands up in salute so as not to stand in someone else’s way of social justice. However, I argue that the “right” to marry not only does not extend to same sex couples, but also to three people who want to get married to each other.