Legalizing same Sex Marriage - Essay Example

? Legalizing same Sex Marriage Legalizing same sex marriage has become one of the most controversial debate in the United s of America. There are several arguments to this cause: every citizen has the right to pursue happiness; gay marriage is morally wrong; it is a travesty to the institution of marriage and family. One of the biggest fight in America, is the fight for equality. In the fifties and sixties, black Americans fought for equal rights, and this was one of the longest and most publicized fight since the abolishment of slavery. Today there is a new, tempestuous issue on the horizon— the legalizing same sex marriage. Before defending the rights of same sex marriage, certain questions must be answered: are gays American citizen; are they humans; and do they pay taxes? The answer to these questions is yes. Then why are they not given equal treatment as other American citizens? Simple, a marriage is the union between a male and a female. And gay are given equal rights. They have all the right of any American citizen, and as soon as they fit the criteria for marriage they will be pronounced married. In the magazine, The Teach, Adam Kolasinski says: The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, ...In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing (5). Apparently Mr. Kolasinski is not the one one who agrees that gays already has all the right that each American citizen has. Eddie Thompson at AD authorden.com agrees to, he says: First, gay and lesbians already possess rights equally protected under the law. They have the exact rights that I have today. They can marry a member of the opposite sex if they so choose, just like I have done. I can't marry a member of my own sex, even if I wanted to. So, we have the exact same rights. What is being suggested by the gay agenda is not "equal rights" but "extra rights." They want to be allowed to reap the benefits of marriage without actually marrying in its traditional sense. There are many wonderful people who choose to remain single for myriad reasons, and these people are not clamoring for the rights granted to couples who marry. Why should those who refuse traditional marriage be granted such rights simply because they prefer sex with someone whose anatomy r esembles their own? In fact, most of the so-called “rights” married couples have can be obtained through a lawyer’s legal maneuvers. Documents of the United States constitution, Declaration of Independent, and the Bill of Rights are testimonies of the freedom enjoy by Americans. Unfortunately, our founding fathers were unaware that they neglected to enact another document, the Bill of Rights for same sex marriage. Had they not been negligence, the new Bill would read thus: The constitution of the United States of America do apologize to the American people for the travesty it is about to commit on the sanctity of marriage. The people of the United States of America must now recognize the union of pf two men or two women, and give it the distinguish name of marriage. The same privilege given to a man and a woman who form a union will now be given to marriages of same sex. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman who chooses to love each other and decides to consummate that love through marriage will be given a legal document testifying to that fact. If such parties choose to, they are allowed to raise children, but not before they have decided who will be mommy, and who will be daddy. This is required so that the children will not be confused why their friends have a man and a woman for mommy and daddy. When this bill is passed several more undesirable groups will be fighting for rights that cannot be their's. Same sex getting married is against the norm; it is also against moral law and physical law. Does this mean that gay couples should not find happiness like other people? No, it does not, they can be happy in whatever way they want, just do not ask society to accept their union as a marriage. The laws of physic say two negatives or two positives cannot attract. Even nature testify to that fact. Plants that are here today and gone tomorrow cannot pollinate without the attraction of a male and female zygote. No one has the right to tell one how to live, but one has the right not to recognize the union of two same sex sharing a home, and calling themselves married. Scott Bidstrup, on bidstrup.com, gives his view about gay marriage: The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by t he law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well. Mr. Bidstrup is entitled to his opinion, and his argument might be sincere, however, this union cannot be called marriage. Two people of the same sex can live together, take the name of their partner, but it will never be marriage. What would Mr. Bidstrup do if he sends his son or daughter to college for four years, and at the end of that four years that child returns with a certificate in bar-tending. Would he accept that certificate as a four year degree, or money well spent? I do not think so. The same way anything on paper cannot be accepted as a degree, is the same way any unions, of same sex is not a marriage. Homosexuality is morally wrong, however, my issue with gay marriage is not whether or not it is wrong. They can live together, share their money, commit themselves to each other do anything but do not use marriage to describe their union. If people of the same sex are married, then what should people of opposite sex who are married be called? Marriage needs a new definition. Two people of the same sex can form any kind of union but not be given the title marriage. They have the right to pursue love and happiness but accept the fact that they are different and seek another word to describe what they are. Mr. Bidstrup continues to say: The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Mr. Bidstrup argument does not make sense, the people who are concern with the morality of gays, are the people who will object to anything that is not their idea. America is full of sexual immorality. They are probably as many couples co-inhabiting as there are gays living together, however, no one hears these common-law couples calling themselves married. There are many marriages that should have never taken place, it is no good for the children who are the victims of these marriages. Nonetheless, they are unions between a man and a woman. I have heard arguments for gays marriage saying that there is less sexual promiscuity. I do not know the truth to that, but argument is not against gays, it is about “gay marriage.” Homosexuals need to understand that society has long recognized or ignored the fact that they are not going to go away, and is willing to leave them alone. Gay marriage will desecrate the name of something that is supposed to be beautiful. Mr. Bidstrup makes a lot of points in the defense of gay marriage, here is another: The thought of gay sex is repulsive. This is the so-called "ick factor." Well, it will come as some surprise to a lot of heterosexuals to find out that, to a lot of gays, the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive! But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't t think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work the other way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway. Prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: "SO-DO-MY -- SO DO MY neighbors, SO DO MY friends." Imagining gay sex is quite repulsive and Mr. Bidstrup probably thinks this, only he has to defend his belief. No one really sits around and think of this revolting action; who really cares? To each his own. Let us look at another one of Mr. Bidstrup's argument for gays: They might recruit: The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that most virulent, even violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia is as I internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him. Mr. Bidstrup may very well make a good point here, the truth is, these people will eventually have to address their fears. Society does not believe that gays are more prone to commit sexual assaults any more than heterosexuals. They just do not fit the criteria for marriage, or married couple. Gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality. This presumes that homosexuality is anything other than simply a normal variation of human development. The reality is that every mental health association has recognized that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variation on how humans develop, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from science that there are sound reasons why it has evolved, and why it is not selected against in evolutionary pressure. It is not perverted, it does not degrade human culture, it is not a t threat to humankind in any way. All those stereotypes, long cultivated by homophobes, have been disproven both by experience and by scientific research, but that does not prevent the homophobe from holding to them dearly. And allowing state sanction in the f form of marriage, threatens the stereotype by undermining the justification for it. Mr. Bidstrup just does not get it, the argument against gay marriage is not about one sexual preference; it is about the meaning of marriage. Homosexuality does not need to be legalize; even if it is still in the law books as illegal no one is being arrested for that crime. If homosexuality is going to be treated as a crime, the economy would be blooming on account of the many new prisons that would have to be erected. Before homosexuality can be legalized it has to first be illegal. Marriage is soil on which family is built. A debate from here to eternity is never going to come up with a hypothesis that will put two men together and make them have children, neither can two women do that. Homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children, or behave as if they are a nuclear family. If they want to have their own children then that is their prerogative, their rights. No matter what one does to a pig it will still wallow in mud when it comes to it. If a skunk is bathe in perfume and wrapped in silk, it is still a skunk. Same way if a man wears a dress, grows his hair as a woman, grow his nails, and wears heels, he is still a man. This is the story, gay marriage, will never be a marriage. Once allowed to be officially married, homosexual couples will more than likely be able to adopt. I do not doubt the pure love that these couples would show a child, and I do not doubt their pure intentions. I do believe in the natural drive toward wanting to have children. Yet, I also know that it has been shown that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. These issues will affect their entire life. In the situation of a homosexual couple, who is trying to prove their validity as able parents, I fear that the children may not be offered the help that they would desperately need. To be honest, I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. A situation of either the lack of one parent or one parent was extremely domineering in the relationship. Society argues that homosexuality is biblically wrong, and that might be so; nevertheless, the issue is not about religion or morality; it is about marriage. No one is trying to enforce their opinion on gays or is trying to convert them. From the beginning marriage has always been between male and female. Animals have mating season, and even though one may find a dog or a cat having several mating partners during one night; there has never been a report that any of these animals has ever been caught mating with the same gender. If animals can make the decision not to mate with their own sex, Why then, do human beings want to behave lower than the animals. And if they choose not to exercise more intelligence than animals, why do they flaunt it, why not keep it to themselves and not dare society with wanting something they can never have. If one should truly contemplate the idea of two people of the same sex getting married, he/she would come to the conclusion that gay marriage only tarnishes the institution of marriage. The oldest institution since the beginning of time. Different groups are given different names, and these identity can be seen from afar. A black person can put on all the makeup he/he can secure, at the end of the day he/she is still black. Likewise a white person canot never change the color of his/her skin. If either one tries to change the color of their skin, they would look rather ridiculous. Homosexuals need to accept the fact that no matter what they do they will never gain marriage status. The day this happens, then marriage as we know it will be at an end. Marriage would need a new name. William J. Bennett on Catholic Education and Resource Center also supports the fact that marriage would loose its essence if gays are allowed the right to marry.. He says: The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition — and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow. On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers? How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people? After all, doing so would be a denial of that person's sexuality. In our time, there are more (not fewer) reasons than ever to preserve the essence of marriage. Several European countries have given sanction to gay marriage, and these couples walk around masquerading as marriage couples. Even as they display themselves, deep within their hearts they know they are not married, why? Marriage is between a male and a female. Denial is not reality, just because homosexuals denies the fact they they have not met the requirement for marriage, it does not make them married. The only reason they fight so hard for liberation is because they know they will never get that freedom. People who supports and fight for gay marriage are the same people who will fight for tolerance in our schools. School age is an impressionable age; and our children who are already faced with peer pressure will have to contend with choosing to be or no to be homosexual. I say once and for all, the debate of gay marriage should be stemmed before it becomes a run away train. Our children are already experimenting with drugs and sex, do not confuse them anymore by making them doubt their sexuality. Some may think that love is the only basic for a marriage. Be that as it may, just because two people of the same sex love each other does not mean that they are qualify for marriage. Homosexuals want to get married because they want to claim legal status, They already have legal status, they just cannot get married status privileges. If they want to protect each other from medical decision, then make a living will. Sorry, they cannot file income taxes together, they are not married, and that is a privilege for married people. If gays are going against the norms of society, then the expression of their love for each other can be express as tangible as they want, but not with a legal writ call marriage certificate. The fight against gay marriage can come down to one statement. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Moral law, civil law, religion, have nothing to do with the debate. Do we ever call a dog a cat, or a cow a sheep? No, Why? A dog looks like a dog, a cat looks like a cat, and a cow looks like a cow. Would we be contented if we paid for organic food, and is given regular food for the same money? No. We would demand our money back, or we would demand what we paid for. This is the reason homosexuals cannot be married if heterosexuals already have the claim to marriage. Religion has nothing to do with the issue of marriage, what most people have not grasp is that, the Bible and religion are two different entity. One can follow the teachings of the Bible and is not affiliated to any religion. So far the Bible is the best history book, and if one believes in the story of creation then he/she must admit that when God created the earth, he made them male and female. He did not bring a man and a woman and ask Adam to choose. He brought woman to Adam and bids them to be fruitful and multiply. God's creation is full of male and female. Therefore, why at this stage man believe that he can change the law of the creator. One of the main reason for the destruction of Sodom, is because of its indulgence in homosexuality, that is even why the original name was sodomy.. No, I will not preach, “Let him that has no sins cast the first stone.” All I am saying is no matter how much one deviates from the law, or how sexual deprave society becomes, certain things remain the same and one of these things is marriage. Every day we go against the teachings of the Bible, we go against religion, and sometime we even go against the laws of the land. That is the reason I am not judging homosexuality as a moral sin. The truth is, I am not even judging homosexuality, I am just taking a stand to preserve the institution of marriage that was instituted by God. When man became so sinful and God was displeased with their behavior, so much so that he decides to rid the earth of these ungracious, unlawful people, he told Noah to build an ark because he is going to wash away sin from the face of the earth. He gave Noah the specification of the ark, enough room to house the animals. Just before the flood starts how did they went in the ark, how did they go in the ark? In pairs, male and female. Even when they did not go two by two they still went male and female. If God wants mere animals to co-inhabit with the opposite sex, who give anyone the right to request a marriage of the same sex. Mr. Bidstrup defense for same sex marriage is getting thin, he truly believes that gays are born that way, they cannot help who they are. I would like to ask Mr. Bidstrup another question, if he knew that both his parents are thieves, would he go around stealing claiming that it is his inheritance. Just because one has a natural propensity to do something, does that makes it right, and does that means that this person has no will power to change? I think Mr. Bidstrup would answer in the positive. He just lost his argument that gays are born are born gay. With effort and perseverance a person can change his natural disposition. If we were to indulge every bad habit because we are born that way , the world would be a very sad place to live. People have also debated the fact that denying gays the right to get married is sexual discrimination., or discrimination against minority. None of this is true. There was a time when hate crimes a against gays were prevalent, but the authorities came to their defense, the same way they do for any other hate crimes. As a matter of fact, this kind of crime has no tolerance in America. There are no discrimination against gays, unless they become ridiculous, like wanting to be treated like women or wanting to be treated with marital status. Like any other minority groups some people in society are going to treat gays with a certain kind of discrimination, and most of this foolishness is due to ignorance. Criminals are not really selective against who will become their victims. There should never be any controversy between the government and gays, when it comes to the decision of marriage. Gays need to debate amongst themselves and answer the following question; do they have the rights and privileges as other American male or female, not how can we have the American government to give us legal marriage status. The answer to the first question is yes. However, they will always come up with a negative answer when their marriage status is debated, that is if they are honest. They just do not fit the category. Gays will have to agree to disagree that their demand is not going to be met, The majority of Americans are not going to vote for “gay Marriage,” Now, do homosexuals want marriage or equal rights. I think they themselves know that they are not really fighting for civil rights. What they are actually fighting for is to be recognized as normal people and marriage will give them that position. I am very sure that should some civil rights are taken from them and is replaced with the legality of gay marriage, they would give up those rights just to be counted as married people. Gays do not have much to fight about. They live together as couples, they are allow employment, even when they blatantly expose their sexual deviance, they have gotten sufferance, recently President Obama decided that a citizens should not be deny the to right to serve their county because of their sexual preference. Gays have nothing to fight for, they have all the rights of American citizens. They can ask for acknowledgement of their commitment to each other, they can make legal agreement to protect their rights, but they can not, and should never ask for a marriage certificate. They can have any kind of ceremony to cement their commitment. They can enjoy their lives as they are now; but as a married person I would be greatly offended, and the majority of the American people will agree with me; that when two people of the same sex obtain marriage status with an entrance in the book of records, marriage as we know it to be, will be nullified. Work cited Bennett, William J. 04 Jan. 2010. “Gay Marriage: not Very Good Idea.” Catholic Education Resource Center. 18 July 2011 Polasinski, Adam. The argument Against Gay Marriages.” The Teach [Cambridge] 125(2004):5 Bidstrup, Scott. “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and Motives” 18 July, 2011 “Noon-religious argument Against Gay Marriage” 22 June 2006 Provopulse.com. 18 July 2011 Thompson, Eddie. “Argument Against Gay Marriages” Adauthorden.com 18 July 2011 Read More