Homosexuality and Civil Rights - Essay Example

Same-sex Marriage: Homosexuality and Civil Rights Homosexuality, which before was considered a disorder, is fast gaining grounds being recognized asa minority group in the society. A minority group should be protected from discrimination and share equal rights as the majority. Thus homosexuals being in the minority should be a recognized as group in the society and be equally benefited with rights to include marriage, even with the same sex. Same sex marriage is a civil right. "Why Conservatives Should Support Same-Sex Marriage: The Marrying Kind.” May 2002. While society has come to accept homosexuals as individuals with equal rights – to education, employment and protection by the law, it has failed to give full credence to them in terms of marriage. Conservatives in rationalizing their protest for same-sex marriage undermines the homosexuals’ persona. But is same-sex marriage a question of character or integrity? Or is it an issue of equal privileges, opportunity and respect? Reasons for same-sex marriage advocacy: Homosexuality is individualism. Society now accepts homosexuals as part of the community. Homosexuals are recognized as minority group. Diversity is already a norm. There is openness in the presence of homosexuals at home, school, work and community. Homosexuals have proven to be contributors to the community in their various successes in different fields. Homosexuality should not be equated to promiscuity. Marriage is a personal decision. It is a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.American Psychological Association (APA): marriage. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved June 28, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage It is voluntary. A choice made by two consenting adults of legal age to live together and be recognized as a social institution. Marriage is a given privilege. It is a right under the full protection of law to be enjoyed by each citizen. Homosexuals should be treated just like everyone else. Homosexual couples deserve the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. Marriage is a civil right. Same-sex marriage does not demoralize marriage. Homosexuals place a high value for marriage. Couples engaged in same-sex relationships have taken their relationship a step higher than "eros" (dictionary.com). They would like to be recognized in the community as married couples and create a family. They disagree with just living together as a couple without commitment. Homosexuals also would like to be in a monogamous relationship, thus the call for solemnity in marriage. Same-sex marriage can strengthen the security and stability of a diverse household. Same-sex marriage does not promote sexuality transmitted disease Same-sex marriage discourages promiscuity. Marriage encourages same-sex couples to be in a monogamous relationship. Although homosexual activists have repeatedly stated the grounds for consideration of same-sex marriage, it is not clear as to what exactly they would like to achieve by getting married. As individuals, gay and lesbians are no longer treated as outcasts but as unique human beings with character and personality. Acceptance may not be total (as you cannot please everybody), but same-sex relationship is no longer judged as "evil." What in being married do they want to enjoy? To be called husbands and wives? Why is there a need to legitimize same-sex marriage when homosexuals can enjoy their rights as citizens? Unless of course they are living in a place where homosexuality is condemned, but is there still a place without known homosexuals? On what basis would their marriage be bounded -- love, compatibility… or security? Is the economic privilege of matrimony the center of this hubbub? Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship. Commitment not license. “Missing Ingredient for Gay Marriage: Women Not Weddings.” June 2008. While it is apparent that the number one antagonist in same sex marriage is religion, or more appropriately its leaders, dogma has little to do with the opposition in same sex marriage, but culture. The same culture that has become open-minded to same-sex relationships. Why? By culture we accept that sexuality is respected as a natural psychological occurrence, be it heterosexual or homosexual; same-sex marriage is not a natural occurrence. Same-sex relationship, although tolerated does not necessarily believed to be correct. People have become used to seeing gay people (and lesbians) that they have come to respect them and any affairs they may have as part of their individuality. It has not, however, gone to the level where it is something to advocate or preach to model. Culture dictates that the vital goal of marriage is reproduction. By virtue of religion, the purpose of matrimony is for procreation which is practically not viable in same-sex relationships. Although they can always adopt, what do kids up for adoption wishes to have? A normal, healthy and loving family. Having two fathers or two mothers is certainly not the normal kind of family for a child. Which gives way to my next point; We define the core family as having a father and mother. Are we ready to redefine what constitutes the core of our society? Do we make a solid foundation for our children having parents of the same sex? Are we not depriving them of the chance to have to say "mother" or "father"? Are we prepared to start a new mores? Marriage does not thwart infidelity. There is no guarantee that being in a legal and binding relationship would stop infidelity. Being unfaithful is a test of character and principle, not being married. If normal married couples are not protected from betrayal, so is same-sex marriage. Marriage does not guarantee long-term commitment. It is not a marriage license that guarantees long-term commitment (Medved, 2008), but the personal vow to be in the same relationship for life. There is no legal warranty for a stable and long-lasting relationship. There is only devoted couple. Except for the reason that same-sex marriage is out of the norm, there is no strong ground for not allowing same-sex marriage that will not sound discriminatory. We cannot win against religion. We cannot defy God. But how we do also know that this is how God would like us to behave towards or treat same-sex marriage? Some would say by allowing same-sex marriage is encouraging our children to be homosexuals and do homosexual acts, but isnt that being chauvinistic? The two opposing terms in the debate on same-sex marriage are promiscuity and legitimacy. Should we legalize promiscuity? It may not be marriage itself that we oppose but the homosexual acts. We cannot separate homosexuality from the act, and we cannot separate the sexual act from marriage. The fact is man can never be the same as woman, and so will same-sex marriage not be the same as heterosexual marriage. The magnificence in any relationship is not based on what the law approves or what culture considers a taboo or not. It is the individuals values. It is not a question of civil rights, hence all that is written can be twisted, and there it will be a very thin life for us to distinguish right from wrong. Not because we want something so much for ourselves means it is good for us, more so for the people around us. Why not get all that is good in a heterosexual relationship, and all that is good in a homosexual partnership? The important thing is the person as a being, accepted and recognized as an individual worthy of being part of the society. Live and let live! References Medved, Michael, “Missing Ingredient for Gay Marriage: Women Not Weddings.” Townhall.Com 25 June 2008. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/06/25/missing_ingredient_for_gay_marriage_women,_not_weddings?page=full&comments=true. Rauch, Jonathan. “Why Conservatives Should Support Same-Sex Marriage: The Marrying Kind.” Atlantic Monthly May 2002. . Read More