Should Homosexuals Be Able to Marry - Essay Example

Should Homosexuals Be Able To Marry? The issue of homosexuality is a pertinent one in society today. In some cases, it is a taboo topic among some quarters while, in others, it is freely addressed. The political leadership also has seemingly been averse to comprehensively tackle the matter. This article will, therefore, seek to look into this matter and issues around it. It will attempt to look into whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry or not. Its basis will be to look at the issue of same sex unions, the merits and demerits of these unions and the need to enforce them or do away with them. Introduction The matter of same sex unions has been around since time in memorial. In the bible, there is a mention of the destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah by God due to the wickedness of the inhabitants of these two cities. The wickedness was the practice of same sex unions where men slept with fellow men (Gen 19: 1-29). Basing on this argument, most governments and states have placed laws that bar the practice of homosexuality. All people are allowed to have their opinions on all matters under the sun with the only restriction being that these opinions do not interfere with those of others. However, there are rights that allow all people to live free from any form of discrimination. Argument for Same Sex Unions Of most important to consider here is the primacy of human rights. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Rights (UDHR) upholds this primacy through protection of people against all kinds of unfairness that entail race, sex and onwards. At the end, it also mentions ‘other status’ which arguable includes sexual orientation. In a landmark ruling at the Vermont Supreme Court, Justice John Dooley made the remark that allowed for the protection of same sex unions. This ruling also went ahead to grant same sex couples the same rights as those granted to heterosexual couples (Mello 2004). This is an indication that a sexual relationship between two men or women has the same standing as that of a man and a woman in law. Currently, the term marriage does not apply to same sex unions. The correct term used here is ‘civil unions’. This is so because there are no churches that allow same sex unions. The issue then arises the question as to whether the gay couples should be allowed to consummate their union in church. According to Snyder (2006), it is not fair to allege that adoption of legislation in support of same sex unions will usher America backward to the pre sexual revolution era. On the issue of morals, Snyder (2006) is of the opinion that the media has made some irreparable damage on its own. This is through exposure of the viewers to high sexual content in programs. Moreover, the blame has continually fallen in the corporate media for the contribution it has made towards moral decay in the society. When people of the same gender are allowed to come together in a civil union, there is a tendency of bringing their stigma level down (Snyder 2006). This means that people within these unions will be more confident to come out in public. They will be able to announce their nuptials in newspapers and even feel confident to display pictures of their partners in their places of work and other places. This level of tolerance is what most people within the same sex circles are advocating for. At the moment, the same sex couples do not enjoy most of the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. These rights include healthcare, insurance, and right to adoption among other rights (Andryszewski 2008). As more reason to grant these rights, the people within same sex unions will be able to enjoy them and make their lives much easier. As it is, the government cannot be able to dictate people’s life. However, it should protect their life as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other people. What people need is not special treatment but equality along the lines of normal heterosexual relationships (Andryszewski 2008). While anti gay activists will list the family stability as being under threat, the pro gay activists contend that the reverse is actually true (Andryszewski 2008). The proponents of same sex unions have a difficult in dealing with the issue because most people have shunned the unions due to stigma. Additionally, this has caused them to go into heterosexual unions to conform to society. However, they continue involving themselves in those unions while still married to their husbands or wives. This has the potential of breaking up the home and destabilizing the life of children within that union (Andryszewski 2008). A better solution, in such a case, would be to allow same sex marriages, which are legally valid. This will thus allow the couples to adopt children among other benefits that accrue to married couples. In such a case, the same sex union will allow for a more stable relationship as people will be allowed to enter into a marriage with those they choose thus having the positive impact of establishing the unit of the family (Andryszewski 2008). The unit of marriage as it is has both a standing in the law as well as in religion. Granting of the legal standing would, therefore, allow the couples to have a much easier lifestyle as opposed to denying this right. Gerstmann (2004) is of the opinion that, the society has taken to shunning the issue of gay rights and focusing attention on other issues such as terrorism. He argues that the country must look critically at the issue of gay rights as this is a litmus test of sorts. Furthermore, the country will show its willingness to uphold equality of all citizens regardless of their orientation. According to Gerstmann, a lot of people are more willing to acknowledge the existence of fairness in law hence they can not affirm on their opinion concerning the issue of gay. There is, therefore, the need to look past the ‘gay rights’ tag into more pressing matters (Gerstmann 2004). The more pressing matter according to Gerstmann is to do with looking at the issue of equality afresh. With this new evaluation, there is need to determine what equality is and its parameters as far as all the people are concerned. The issue should, therefore, be one of protecting all people’s rights rather than picking groups and attempting to grant them more rights at the expense of others. Argument against Same Sex Unions While a lot of law, as well as civil society, have protected same sex unions, there is another side to this coin. Same sex unions are not sacred in the eyes of religion. The reason why same sex unions are processed in the courts of law is simply because the religion will not agree to them. As stated at the introduction, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants of these two cities engaged in what was sinful and unnatural. The perception of many anti-gay crusaders is that the government will in effect be condoning homosexuality when it allows same sex marriages (Gerstmann 2004). This is true on the basis that the end result of the union will be a form or another of consummating this union by the couples. This act is not acceptable, and as a result the government cannot be seen to promote this. It must at all times deject the union between two people of the same gender. The issue of contracting HIV/AIDS is yet another reason for rejecting same sex unions. While it is very true that all forms of sex are risky as even heterosexual people contract HIV/AIDS, the homosexuals are more at risk. This is because the anus is not designed for sexual activity. This thus means that there a high chance that there will be bleeding during intercourse and thus the chances of contracting the diseases will go up (Aggleton 1999). A survey on 211 male prostitutes produced the following results: 33.3% who were homosexuals were HIV positive, 20.7% who were bisexual were HIV positive and 6.1% of those who were heterosexual were infected(Aggleton 1999). While it is unfair to branch all homosexual men as promiscuous, the truth is that there is a high chance that people who are gay will at one time or another have multiple sexual partners. This means that they are more vulnerable to transmitted infections than their comrades who are heterosexual (Aggleton 1999). With heterosexual relationships, the risk of contracting the illness is lower especially if the man is circumcised. The government must, therefore, armed with these facts repel attempts to have same sex unions have validity in law. Counter to Argument against Same Sex Unions It is important to note that those advocating for the rights of gay people to marry do not ask for the approvals of the church. The argument is mostly premised in civil liberties (Andryszewski 2008). This means that the people are looking to have the courts validate their unions for the sake of their rights within the unions. Though there may be a moral issue at hand, the truth of the matter is that homosexuality and lesbianism exists and ignoring the issue doesn’t make it none existence. The solution is to tackle the issue head on that way the people are able to live with it. President Obama recently made it clear that he had no issue with gay unions. This means that tolerance for those within this group is building up. It also indicates the political goodwill to uphold rights of gay people. This is what has driven them to look into equality for their colleagues in the first place (Andryszewski 2008). The perception is that HIV/AIDS has a high prevalence in homosexual men (Aggleton 1999); the same cannot be said for the lesbian women. The women have different physical features and are, therefore, at a higher risk as are the men. At the same time, homosexuality is not permission for promiscuity. A lot of homosexual men have a single partner with whom they have sex. This is similar to the heterosexual unions. This means that in the case of spreading the virus, it would be unfair to place a blanket condemnation on the homosexuals. The claim that homosexuality has soiled the moral fiber has been addressed by Snyder (2006). While the claim that the acts of homosexuality are unnatural and hence morally reprehensible, the truth is that even heterosexual unions have played their part in ruining the moral fiber. The programs that show partial but very revealing steamy heterosexual scenes have also played a huge role in bringing promiscuity into society. There is therefore need for a review of this. Conclusion This article has come to the finding that there is need to look into same sex unions with an aim of validating them. Throughout the article a number of issues have been issued to propose a level of tolerance to homosexual couple as part of the bigger goal of upholding equality among each and every American citizen. The people need to be aware that the issue of being gay is not a trifle matter but is one that begs serious attention from all stake holders. This means that parents need to sensitize their children about those who are different. At the same time civil weddings of same sex couples should be allowed. References: Aggleton, P. (1999).Men who Sell Sex: International Perspectives on Male Prostitution and HIV/AIDS. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Andryszewski, T. (2008). Same Sex Marriages: Moral wrong or Civil Right? Minneapolis: Twenty First Century Books. Mello, M. (2004). Legalizing Gay Marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Snyder, R. C. (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Read More