Same Sex Marriage Debate

Same Sex Marriage Debate The issue on whether or not two people of the same sex should be married is one of the most controversial issues today. Throughout American history as well as in biblical text, marriage was and is said to be between two heterosexuals. The very fabric of the “traditional family” is said to be at a tear because of same sex marriage. But on the other hand, one might argue that the Bible does not say that the marriage of two people of the same sex is forbidden and denying marriage to same sex couples goes against ones civil rights, another might argue. The issue has a few controversial topics which will be touched on. Burman Skrable, author of the article “Homosexual Marriage: Much to Fear”, argues that same sex marriage should not be allowed. Heather Ann Gannon, author of the article “A Case for Same-Sex Marriage”, argues that marriage should be allowed between two people of the same sex. They both touch on the topics of how religion, history, as well as procreation support their argument. They both provide evidence as well as detailed examples of the topics concerning the issue. Gannon tries to point out the flaws or weaknesses of the three major topics discussed, while Skrable justifies his means of not allowing same sex marriage through historical and a sort of scientific mean. Both authors get there points across a detailed well fashioned manner. Gannon begins her argument on the issue by debunking the religious reasons behind why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. She begins by pointing out how the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, in fact is labeled as an abomination specifically in the Bible, and is one of the worst kinds of sins. Therefore, God-fearing Christians should do there job and stop the on going of this abominable act. She finds two problems with that argument. First she speaks that homosexuality is not the only bad sin, but there are others equally as bad like idol worship and murder. Neither of the other two abominations is used to restrict access to marriage. She talks about how convicted felons can marry while in prison and idol worshipers still can marry. Gannon’s next point was that marriage in the United States is a civil affair and how there is no state hat requires a religious service to be married. Skrable does not go into depth with the religious aspect but intends on shifting it away from the idea of it solely just being religious. He feels it is not unlikely that this issue has arisen because institutions or doctrines that have been unquestionably accepted for eons do tend to be challenged. He feels that the argument should be moved to a more scientific foundation. He says that most of the Christian beliefs are well proven by the social sciences and therefore, there is nothing really religious about the argument. He feels as though since Christianity can be looked at as a science that it has the society’s “life-and-death interest in ensuring there own survival”. The issue should be to him, what is marriage. Gannon also feels as though history has no significant role in determining whether same sex marriage is alright. She explains how the definition of marriage has changed over the course of history. She gives examples of how it was a contract between two men and the women have no say so and then it became a union of people of the same race. She wrote The Supreme Court said that tradition is not a valid reason for discriminatory laws, which she feels that not allowing homosexual marriage is one of them. Skrable sees the ‘traditional family’ at risk if same sex marriage was to be permitted. The traditional family is vital to the stability of a society and has been the very reason why society keeps living. Without ensuring a stable present and providing for the future society wouldn’t make it. Homosexuality can not provide for the future means of bearing and without enough children properly raised, the well being of those who depend on them is put at jeopardy. Skrable goes on to talk about how basically allowing same sex marriage mainly will completely destroy marriage as we know it. How there will not be any morals left in marriage or how it would rip the fabric of society by allowing this act and would only open up the door for others. He feels as though that the act would further reinforce the sexual revolution’s notion that any connection between sex and children is optional. Both authors take towards there side of the issue strongly and with a firm tone. Gannon seemed to be more direct with a sort of here is your side and here is why it is inadequate type approach. Although, Skrable seemed to voice his opinion a little in his arguments and not provide as many hard facts as Gannon behind her issue, he did tackle each of his points with adequate evidence. Skrable also didn’t go into as much depth with the main reasons why people oppose same sex marriage as much as Gannon, but he provided a sort of alternative view to look at. Gannon showed both side of the argument in her article, not as much as her opposing issue, but she exposed flaws in the topic. The issue on whether to allow or not to allow same sex marriage will not be solved anytime soon. The issue is too controversial and has become too much a political issue for it to be solved anytime in the near future.

Works Cited Gannon, Heather Ann. “Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Allowed”. Hohonu: A Journal of Academic Writing. Vol 2. 2004. Skrable, Burman. “Homosexual Marriage: Much to Fear”. Culture Wars. 1999.