(no subject)
i do
From wedding bells to flower girls and from bridesmaids to the traditional throwing of the bouquet, a wedding is one of the most beautiful and memorable days in a persons life and represents the inauguration of a lifelong journey and commitment between two people. But for the homosexual community, this experience is only a dream. For centuries, politicians, upper class society and the general population have all tried to put an end to the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage specifically. Religion, government, and the decision of what"'"s best for children all come into play for and against the debate over gay marriage. And though everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, it is unfair to prevent two people, who truly care and love each other, to enter into holy matrimony.
For over 300 years, from 480 B.C to 180 B.C, a homosexual lifestyle was not only an acceptable part of society, it was commonly practiced, especially among the rich and powerful, such as former Greek leader, Alexander the Great. It was not until a statement by one of the worlds most well known philosophers that homosexuals were not thought of as equals. Plato commented, '"'Our citizens should not be inferior to birds and many species of animals'"' during the '"'classical Greece'"' era. In this quote he was referring to the idea that animals did not practice homosexual acts and, therefore, humans should not either. (Ruse)
However, contrary to this quote, insects, fish, birds, and numerous mammals have been observed participating in homosexual like acts. Though people who are against same-sex marriage may say that these do not truly define a homosexual relationship because they are only animals, why should our standards be set to those of an animal relationship? Should the animal kingdom really dictate whether or not it is perfectly fine to participate in a homosexual marriage or relationship? The answer is no. Animals are different than humans and do not typically enter into a relationship for any reason other than reproduction. Humans, however, have the ability to love and feel emotion, making our relationships dissimilar to those of animals. It is unfair, and morally wrong, to say that because a bird does not have a homosexual lifestyle human beings should not either. (Ruse)
Yet, since the 13th century in Europe, the homosexual community has always been viewed and thought of as unequal and unimportant in society. Homosexuals were forced to pretend to be heterosexual or live in humiliation. For hundreds of years, the gay community was forced to live in poverty and seemed to be under constant threat of becoming a social outcast and laughing stock of the community. (Rauch)
Though laws, beliefs, and opinions on what is acceptable in everyday society have changed since 13th century Europe, the public view on gay marriage has not. Even during and since the 1950"'"s and 1960"'"s (when the civil rights movement was at its peak) gays have faced scrutiny and public humiliation for being homosexual. The heterosexual community still appears to place themselves above the homosexual community, even in today"'"s society when it is against the law to discriminate because of sex, color, religion and many other factors which a person cannot control.
As recent as 1967, some states even discriminated against whites marrying blacks and though today very few people would willingly admit to being in favor of this law, same-sex marriage, though slightly more complicated, should be viewed no different than an interracial marriage, no matter how uncommon it may be. Local, State, or Federal governments should not have the power to prevent two people from getting married because of their sex. (Sullivan)
While many say that a homosexual lifestyle is only a choice, Richard A. Posner, author of Sex and Reason (1992) has proven that homosexuals live everywhere, whether that society accepts a homosexual lifestyle or not. Also, if homosexuals were truly heterosexuals choosing the same sex over the opposite sex, this way of life should have become extinct after so many centuries. If a gay lifestyle were so appealing, eventually entire societies would have turned gay. (Rauch)
Perhaps one of the most influential reasons why society opposes same-sex marriage is religion. Christians, who approximately consist of 32% of the world"'"s population, as reported by the World Christian Encyclopedia, believe that the vital part of marriage is not just reproduction but also companionship with chances and opportunities for expression of love that can only be found in marriage. However, the Roman Catholic Church, which constitutes a large percentage of all Christians, believe that procreation is more important than spiritual values or companionship, which would not allow same-sex couples to marry. (Eickhoff)
Yet, the Bible never once directly says that it prohibits same-sex marriage. Religious experts and same-sex marriage opposition argue that the Bible only makes reference to heterosexual marriage as being good. However, this does not mean that Bible disapproves of same-sex marriage. The Bible never once says that it is against same-sex marriage or that same-sex marriage goes against God"'"s will. Experts may dispute that because the Bible does not mention anything about same-sex marriage it means that the Bible does not approve of it. Yet, if the Bible does not approve of anything that it does mention than the modern day things of today (cars, planes, and the computer on which I constructed this essay) would be morally and religiously wrong. Nevertheless, people do not complain about the modern day conveniences as being against the Bible. (Corvino)
Although the Bible may only mention heterosexual marriage as being a normal marriage, the Bible cannot be the only thing on which we base our laws and opinions. Those opposed to same-sex marriage who believe that the Bible says sex between a homosexual couple is wrong may refer to Leviticus 20:7-16,22-27 which states: '"'…If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them…'"' Yet, it is a fact that the Bible also discusses that women were placed on Earth to serve men and that it is all right to own slaves. For example, in Leviticus 25:44-46 it states: '"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves'"'. (Abdallah)
Also, in Exodus 21:20-21 it states that '"'If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property'"'. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find a politician, or even a regular citizen, who would be willing to defend these as acceptable ways of life just because the Bible says that it is all right. (Abdallah)
Because marriage has become perhaps the most important part of today"'"s society, modern day traditionalists have started to make arguments on why same-sex marriage would destroy what a marriage means today. They argue that homosexual marriage is both '"'dangerous and frivolous'"' because it blesses unions in which today"'"s society has little or no interest. Traditionalists also believe anything that jeopardizes marriage '"'undermines this most basic of institutions.'"' (Sullivan)
However, a lasting marriage is something that is hard to find in today"'"s world and those opposed to same-sex marriage argue that allowing same-sex marriage will increase the already high amount of divorces in this country. Yet, this is an impossible assumption, as one cannot assume that because a couple is homosexual they will have a higher chance of getting a divorce.
Another reason that same-sex-marriage would be a positive contribution towards not only the homosexual community but society in general is the effect that marriage can have on a person. It has been proven that single people, especially single women, are more likely to rely on welfare than a married couple. It is also been brought to notice that single men and women are more likely to become ill and require financial aid to help cover medical costs. (Sullivan)
Marriage has been proven to help couples lead a healthier and happier life, which would prove just the same for a homosexual couple. Marriage provides the personal and social needs of a human being as nothing else can. Homosexual couples need this same emotional and economic stability just as a heterosexual couple needs it. (Rauch)
People marry not only to truly show their affection towards another person, but marriage is also a wonderful way to help provide benefits for one another. When a couple marries, they receive countless amounts of benefits that can help support their family. A few of the great benefits that a married couple, recognized by the state, receive are: the right to make a life or death medical decision, the right to inheritance, the right to share pensions and many medical benefits as well. These benefits can help economically support a family and provide an added incentive to get married. (Sullivan)
Yet, because same-sex couples cannot legally enter into a marriage, they are unable to collect on such great benefits. Vermont is the sole state that allows same-sex couples to register for a civil-union. However, a civil-union does not provide a same-sex couple with all the benefits as a marriage would provide. Even countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are beginning to allow same-sex couples to register with the state and are able to collect on many of the afore mentioned benefits. In France and Belgium, numerous cities and local governments have also started to recognize homosexual partnerships. Canada, our loyal neighbor to the north, even allows and recognizes same-sex marriages. (Sullivan)
However, perhaps the most influential topic preventing same-sex marriage has nothing to do with marriage at all. Many who are opposed to same-sex marriage are concerned about a same-sex couple"'"s ability to raise children. Though their concern about the well being of a child is legitimate, their arguments are not.
As of 2000, reported by the Census Bureau, there were approximately 594,000 same-sex couples that had children, whether by adoption, a previous marriage, or another way. This is a substantial number of homosexual couples that have children and the idea that these couples cannot raise their children because of their homosexuality is completely absurd. (Rauch)
Preventing a same-sex couple to raise a child is inhumane. Studies have shown that children are better off living in a stable home and environment and marriage is one of the largest factors in the creation of a stable living center. Those against same-sex marriage argue that the state has an interest in the care of the future generation, which can only be produced through a married couple, which a homosexual couple is presently unable to become. Yet the state only has an interest in assuring that children will reside in homes that they can thrive in. This does not matter if the child is biologically related to both, one, or neither parent. As long as the child has ample opportunities to succeed, the state is happy. In fact, in the case of Adams v. Howerton, (A case in which an American citizen, Richard Adams, married a foreigner, Anthony Sullivan. The court ruled that because they were a homosexual couple, their marriage did not qualify Sullivan to become an American citizen.) the court ruled that the state interest in marriage involved providing a setting for the production and raising of children. Though same-sex couples cannot obviously produce children, they are still more than qualified to raise and take care of children. (Coolidge et al.)
The idea that a same-sex couple is unable to raise a child is not only morally wrong, but it is also sexual discrimination. In point of fact, during the case of Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Colorado State constitutional amendment because it was specifically designed to make gays and lesbians unequal to heterosexuals. (Coolidge et al.)
Some states actually allow first cousins to get married just so long that they do not have children either because of something preventing the couple to produce children or because of an agreement that they will not produce children. Though it is clear to see why first cousins should not be allowed to procreate (as this can lead to birth defects in the child) it is unjust to prevent a same-sex couple from raising a child because they are homosexual. The state cannot deny a heterosexual couple from getting married based on the grounds that they cannot, or do not want to, raise or produce children. This rule should be no different for a homosexual couple wishing to get married. (Coolidge et al.)
Although there may be no clear answer to this debate, the only fair thing to do is allow same-sex couples to get married. A homosexual couple does not deserve to be treated unfairly and unequally. Though it is understandable that some may, and will always, be opposed to same-sex marriage (whether because of a religious belief or personal choice) it is wrong to prevent two people, who truly care and love one another, to enter upon the most sacred bond between two people, which is marriage. People need to realize that homosexuals deserve the same rights and equality as heterosexuals. It is unfair to treat a person differently because of their homosexuality.
As author Jonathon Rauch so perfectly commented, '"'When gays ask to marry, they are not just asking for a legal stamp of approval on the life they have. They are asking for the prospect of a different and…better kind of life. They are asking, really, for a better kind of love.'"' The homosexual community has endured enough hatred and resentment from heterosexuals. It is time that we stop dictating others lives because of religious preference or belief and allow someone to live the life they want. Though heterosexuals may say they don"'"t, it is only fair to allow homosexuals to say '"'I Do'"'.
From wedding bells to flower girls and from bridesmaids to the traditional throwing of the bouquet, a wedding is one of the most beautiful and memorable days in a persons life and represents the inauguration of a lifelong journey and commitment between two people. But for the homosexual community, this experience is only a dream. For centuries, politicians, upper class society and the general population have all tried to put an end to the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage specifically. Religion, government, and the decision of what"'"s best for children all come into play for and against the debate over gay marriage. And though everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, it is unfair to prevent two people, who truly care and love each other, to enter into holy matrimony.
For over 300 years, from 480 B.C to 180 B.C, a homosexual lifestyle was not only an acceptable part of society, it was commonly practiced, especially among the rich and powerful, such as former Greek leader, Alexander the Great. It was not until a statement by one of the worlds most well known philosophers that homosexuals were not thought of as equals. Plato commented, '"'Our citizens should not be inferior to birds and many species of animals'"' during the '"'classical Greece'"' era. In this quote he was referring to the idea that animals did not practice homosexual acts and, therefore, humans should not either. (Ruse)
However, contrary to this quote, insects, fish, birds, and numerous mammals have been observed participating in homosexual like acts. Though people who are against same-sex marriage may say that these do not truly define a homosexual relationship because they are only animals, why should our standards be set to those of an animal relationship? Should the animal kingdom really dictate whether or not it is perfectly fine to participate in a homosexual marriage or relationship? The answer is no. Animals are different than humans and do not typically enter into a relationship for any reason other than reproduction. Humans, however, have the ability to love and feel emotion, making our relationships dissimilar to those of animals. It is unfair, and morally wrong, to say that because a bird does not have a homosexual lifestyle human beings should not either. (Ruse)
Yet, since the 13th century in Europe, the homosexual community has always been viewed and thought of as unequal and unimportant in society. Homosexuals were forced to pretend to be heterosexual or live in humiliation. For hundreds of years, the gay community was forced to live in poverty and seemed to be under constant threat of becoming a social outcast and laughing stock of the community. (Rauch)
Though laws, beliefs, and opinions on what is acceptable in everyday society have changed since 13th century Europe, the public view on gay marriage has not. Even during and since the 1950"'"s and 1960"'"s (when the civil rights movement was at its peak) gays have faced scrutiny and public humiliation for being homosexual. The heterosexual community still appears to place themselves above the homosexual community, even in today"'"s society when it is against the law to discriminate because of sex, color, religion and many other factors which a person cannot control.
As recent as 1967, some states even discriminated against whites marrying blacks and though today very few people would willingly admit to being in favor of this law, same-sex marriage, though slightly more complicated, should be viewed no different than an interracial marriage, no matter how uncommon it may be. Local, State, or Federal governments should not have the power to prevent two people from getting married because of their sex. (Sullivan)
While many say that a homosexual lifestyle is only a choice, Richard A. Posner, author of Sex and Reason (1992) has proven that homosexuals live everywhere, whether that society accepts a homosexual lifestyle or not. Also, if homosexuals were truly heterosexuals choosing the same sex over the opposite sex, this way of life should have become extinct after so many centuries. If a gay lifestyle were so appealing, eventually entire societies would have turned gay. (Rauch)
Perhaps one of the most influential reasons why society opposes same-sex marriage is religion. Christians, who approximately consist of 32% of the world"'"s population, as reported by the World Christian Encyclopedia, believe that the vital part of marriage is not just reproduction but also companionship with chances and opportunities for expression of love that can only be found in marriage. However, the Roman Catholic Church, which constitutes a large percentage of all Christians, believe that procreation is more important than spiritual values or companionship, which would not allow same-sex couples to marry. (Eickhoff)
Yet, the Bible never once directly says that it prohibits same-sex marriage. Religious experts and same-sex marriage opposition argue that the Bible only makes reference to heterosexual marriage as being good. However, this does not mean that Bible disapproves of same-sex marriage. The Bible never once says that it is against same-sex marriage or that same-sex marriage goes against God"'"s will. Experts may dispute that because the Bible does not mention anything about same-sex marriage it means that the Bible does not approve of it. Yet, if the Bible does not approve of anything that it does mention than the modern day things of today (cars, planes, and the computer on which I constructed this essay) would be morally and religiously wrong. Nevertheless, people do not complain about the modern day conveniences as being against the Bible. (Corvino)
Although the Bible may only mention heterosexual marriage as being a normal marriage, the Bible cannot be the only thing on which we base our laws and opinions. Those opposed to same-sex marriage who believe that the Bible says sex between a homosexual couple is wrong may refer to Leviticus 20:7-16,22-27 which states: '"'…If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them…'"' Yet, it is a fact that the Bible also discusses that women were placed on Earth to serve men and that it is all right to own slaves. For example, in Leviticus 25:44-46 it states: '"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves'"'. (Abdallah)
Also, in Exodus 21:20-21 it states that '"'If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property'"'. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find a politician, or even a regular citizen, who would be willing to defend these as acceptable ways of life just because the Bible says that it is all right. (Abdallah)
Because marriage has become perhaps the most important part of today"'"s society, modern day traditionalists have started to make arguments on why same-sex marriage would destroy what a marriage means today. They argue that homosexual marriage is both '"'dangerous and frivolous'"' because it blesses unions in which today"'"s society has little or no interest. Traditionalists also believe anything that jeopardizes marriage '"'undermines this most basic of institutions.'"' (Sullivan)
However, a lasting marriage is something that is hard to find in today"'"s world and those opposed to same-sex marriage argue that allowing same-sex marriage will increase the already high amount of divorces in this country. Yet, this is an impossible assumption, as one cannot assume that because a couple is homosexual they will have a higher chance of getting a divorce.
Another reason that same-sex-marriage would be a positive contribution towards not only the homosexual community but society in general is the effect that marriage can have on a person. It has been proven that single people, especially single women, are more likely to rely on welfare than a married couple. It is also been brought to notice that single men and women are more likely to become ill and require financial aid to help cover medical costs. (Sullivan)
Marriage has been proven to help couples lead a healthier and happier life, which would prove just the same for a homosexual couple. Marriage provides the personal and social needs of a human being as nothing else can. Homosexual couples need this same emotional and economic stability just as a heterosexual couple needs it. (Rauch)
People marry not only to truly show their affection towards another person, but marriage is also a wonderful way to help provide benefits for one another. When a couple marries, they receive countless amounts of benefits that can help support their family. A few of the great benefits that a married couple, recognized by the state, receive are: the right to make a life or death medical decision, the right to inheritance, the right to share pensions and many medical benefits as well. These benefits can help economically support a family and provide an added incentive to get married. (Sullivan)
Yet, because same-sex couples cannot legally enter into a marriage, they are unable to collect on such great benefits. Vermont is the sole state that allows same-sex couples to register for a civil-union. However, a civil-union does not provide a same-sex couple with all the benefits as a marriage would provide. Even countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are beginning to allow same-sex couples to register with the state and are able to collect on many of the afore mentioned benefits. In France and Belgium, numerous cities and local governments have also started to recognize homosexual partnerships. Canada, our loyal neighbor to the north, even allows and recognizes same-sex marriages. (Sullivan)
However, perhaps the most influential topic preventing same-sex marriage has nothing to do with marriage at all. Many who are opposed to same-sex marriage are concerned about a same-sex couple"'"s ability to raise children. Though their concern about the well being of a child is legitimate, their arguments are not.
As of 2000, reported by the Census Bureau, there were approximately 594,000 same-sex couples that had children, whether by adoption, a previous marriage, or another way. This is a substantial number of homosexual couples that have children and the idea that these couples cannot raise their children because of their homosexuality is completely absurd. (Rauch)
Preventing a same-sex couple to raise a child is inhumane. Studies have shown that children are better off living in a stable home and environment and marriage is one of the largest factors in the creation of a stable living center. Those against same-sex marriage argue that the state has an interest in the care of the future generation, which can only be produced through a married couple, which a homosexual couple is presently unable to become. Yet the state only has an interest in assuring that children will reside in homes that they can thrive in. This does not matter if the child is biologically related to both, one, or neither parent. As long as the child has ample opportunities to succeed, the state is happy. In fact, in the case of Adams v. Howerton, (A case in which an American citizen, Richard Adams, married a foreigner, Anthony Sullivan. The court ruled that because they were a homosexual couple, their marriage did not qualify Sullivan to become an American citizen.) the court ruled that the state interest in marriage involved providing a setting for the production and raising of children. Though same-sex couples cannot obviously produce children, they are still more than qualified to raise and take care of children. (Coolidge et al.)
The idea that a same-sex couple is unable to raise a child is not only morally wrong, but it is also sexual discrimination. In point of fact, during the case of Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Colorado State constitutional amendment because it was specifically designed to make gays and lesbians unequal to heterosexuals. (Coolidge et al.)
Some states actually allow first cousins to get married just so long that they do not have children either because of something preventing the couple to produce children or because of an agreement that they will not produce children. Though it is clear to see why first cousins should not be allowed to procreate (as this can lead to birth defects in the child) it is unjust to prevent a same-sex couple from raising a child because they are homosexual. The state cannot deny a heterosexual couple from getting married based on the grounds that they cannot, or do not want to, raise or produce children. This rule should be no different for a homosexual couple wishing to get married. (Coolidge et al.)
Although there may be no clear answer to this debate, the only fair thing to do is allow same-sex couples to get married. A homosexual couple does not deserve to be treated unfairly and unequally. Though it is understandable that some may, and will always, be opposed to same-sex marriage (whether because of a religious belief or personal choice) it is wrong to prevent two people, who truly care and love one another, to enter upon the most sacred bond between two people, which is marriage. People need to realize that homosexuals deserve the same rights and equality as heterosexuals. It is unfair to treat a person differently because of their homosexuality.
As author Jonathon Rauch so perfectly commented, '"'When gays ask to marry, they are not just asking for a legal stamp of approval on the life they have. They are asking for the prospect of a different and…better kind of life. They are asking, really, for a better kind of love.'"' The homosexual community has endured enough hatred and resentment from heterosexuals. It is time that we stop dictating others lives because of religious preference or belief and allow someone to live the life they want. Though heterosexuals may say they don"'"t, it is only fair to allow homosexuals to say '"'I Do'"'.