After the Supreme Court passed the law allowing same-sex marriage in the United States, people all around the world have been celebrating. Most Americans have been applauding the new law while simultaneously criticizing the government for finally implementing what should have been a "fundamental right." Others have been voicing adversary opinions on the subject. A man dubbed under the pseudonym Paul Rosnick wrote an article called "I'm Gay, And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage." Though there are some points in the article that I respect, most of his claims lead me to a great deal of skepticism. Here my thoughts, questions, and concerns regarding the article.

One of Rosnick's first claims is that "marriage is more than a contract." Before he even gets to his main point, I was taken aback by the premise he sets up for his first argument. He states that gay relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently different, and therefore, they should not be considered equal. I find a major flaw in this statement. Same-sex relationships may be different, but their innate distinctiveness from traditional heterosexual relationships does not make them unequal. Simply being different does not constitute inequality. Equality should not be judged by or taken away because of one's nature. If we all lived by this rule, then people of different races would be deemed superior over one another. Just as race is an innate aspect of one's nature, so is sexuality. It is unjust to classify a type of person as unequal to its counterpart.

Rosnick also states is that marriage is a contract created by the government for its primary purpose of producing children in a "responsible manner". He says that allowing same-sex couples to marry could be a precursor to "meaningless anachronism." He says that because of this lack of biological reproduction available in same-sex marriage, their marriage means nothing more than a "lousy love contract." If the true purpose of marriage was solely to create children, then wouldn't there be a prerequisite for marriage that potential married couples would need to fulfill, promising their willingness to bear offspring or at least their ability to bear a child? And what about married couples who chose not to have children, for personal or biological reasons? Do they also contribute to the "meaning anachronism" that will become of our society?

These are the questions I want answers to, "Paul Rosnick."

The next declaration the author makes is that same-sex relationships are "suboptimal environments" for raising children. He softens the blow of this bold and offensive statement by expressing his grief on the matter. He illustrates his agony for this realization by saying he's always wanted to be a father, but tearing a child away from his parent "to selfishly live out" his dreams would be unethical.

There are a plethora of problems I find in this proclamation. One is that he assumes that same-sex couples tear children away from one of their parents. As demonstrated by many gay couples in the U.S., this is not case. Many same-sex couples adopt children. These children, whether adopted overseas or in the U.S., need the love and care of parents, whether gay or straight. Secondly, I find his grandiose statement that every child needs specifically a mother and a father to be amazingly narrow-minded. Sure, it may be ideal to have both a mother and a father. But why is it such a important factor to have heterosexual parents? A gay couple can provide the same love and care for a child as a heterosexual couple. Who is one to say that a person is incapable nurturing a child based on their sexual orientation or gender?

Lastly, Rosnick states that the lives and happiness of America's children have been compromised to benefit adults in many instances. He includes examples of Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Health Care Act, and others, in which these institutions require young people to provide for older adults. He states all of this, I mind you, in a ostensibly compassionate way to defend children. He states that they deserve to be raised by both a mom and and a dad, in other words, a woman and a man, because "we owe them that."

At this point in the article, I don't know whether to laugh or to kindly exit out of the website and throw my head into a pillow to scream in frustration.

Here, Rosnick is stating that same-sex couples who raise children are basically robbing these children of happy lives by taking the role of parenthood away from heterosexual couples. As a gay man, how could Rosnick say this without irony? Is he really stating that heterosexual parents are the only ones capable of raising healthy, happy children? That heterosexual couples are more competent than people like himself?

The writer concludes by saying, "Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that." Honestly, I'm surprised I made it this far in the article. I thought I would've flipped my desk by now.

In the end, I have come to question Paul Rosnick's genuine intentions and identity. I find it extremely unconvincing that this man is homosexual based on the way he communicates a lack of understanding and sympathy of same-sex relationships. I find it hard to believe that a homosexual man would find same-sex couples undeserving of marriage and the right to raise children.

Nonetheless, this is not about the author. In the end, what matters is the message. Simply put, the message of the article is embedded with flaws and inequitable presumptions. Same-sex couples may be different than heterosexual couples, but that does not make them inferior. People should support same-sex marriages because same-sex couples should be allowed to celebrate their love and commitment with a binding contract. Furthermore, same-sex couples are just as capable as heterosexual parents of providing healthy families for children. Period.