The Argument for Gay Marriage - Essay Example

 The controversy over same sex marriage is not unfamiliar to most. The current political climate and the upcoming presidential election isreatly concerned with the platform concerning same sex marriage. The conservative right wing will argue that same sex marriage should be illegal as it interferes with the “sanctity” of marriage. The purpose of this paper is to discuss why that argument is not only feeble but also reprehensible. This paper will additionally address the fact that same sex marriage should be not only legal, but also embraced. We are living in a time of political unrest internationally. Many wars are being fought which render more dead bodies than politically favorable results. The concept of two individuals choosing to solidify their commitment to one another, seems not only valid but also, refreshing considering all the hate that occupies the human race. Further more, any type of government should never be permitted to dictate whom should or should not be permitted to marry whom. Considering that the term “human rights” implies an entire species as opposed to certain facets of a species, there is no way that one group of individuals should be permitted to socially exclude another group of individuals from sharing in rights that should be afforded to all humans equally without regard to sex, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or economic means. The very same argument which states that gays should not be allowed to be married, is virtually synonymous with the one used by white supremacists in the time of slavery and segregation, to maintain the institution of slavery. During the time of slavery in America, African American s were not permitted to vote, own land, patronize establishments or hold public office. It was stated during these times that blacks were “not white” or were lesser people than those who were white. This is no different from the ideology behind “protecting the sanctity of marriage” which is perpetuated by the conservative republican party. The only difference is that heterosexuality is considered the “norm” while homosexuality is considered to be a lesser condition of human sexuality. This is just another way of socially isolating a group of individuals and thereby limiting the rights of said individuals. There is no moral grounds for this and any argument which claims to establish such grounds, is an obtuse attempt at superiority and dominance over other human beings. Sadly, just because heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality, it is considered to be normal. Just because something is common does not make it normal or make other conditions of being human, abnormal. In certain areas of the world, there are proportionally more white people than black people. This does not mean that being white is normal and being black is abnormal, it only means that being white is more common. Incidentally, affording homosexuals the right to enter into the contract of marriage just like anyone else, is of no consequence to anyone but the two individuals who enter into the marriage agreement. This is perhaps the most baffling aspect of the issue of same sex marriage, to those who support equal rights to marry whether gay or straight. It is as though those who wish to prevent gays from marrying, feel that somehow their respective marriages may somehow be influenced or altered simply by accepting or acknowledging the rights of others to marry. If those who oppose gay marriage, choose to only enter into a marriage union involving a man and a woman, that is their prerogative. The banning however, of gay marriage is simply a means of discriminating or oppressing a minority group and has little impact if any in one direction or another to those who are pushing to keep it illegal. One of the benefits of marriage within the U.S., is of course tax breaks. Those who are married and file jointly, often save money by doing so rather than filing separately. As it stands, those who are gay and have been married out of the country, are unable to file jointly due to the U.S. government not recognizing gay matrimony. Incidentally, the separation of church and state has long been embraced by the American people and it is provided for in the Constitution. The banning of gay marriage however, is done on the premise of religious beliefs and values which are thus used as the sole reason for making same sex marriage illegal. If any other argument were to surface and the argument of religious value was used in its defense, there would be no legal grounds for observing the religious aspect of such argument due to the separation of church and state. This aspect of necessary separation of church and state regarding same sex marriage, is virtually ignored by not only the current president of the United States, but by multiple politicians, state and government officials and voters alike. Sadly, an exception has been made which embraces social exclusion of a particular portion of the population, and therefore has created a large and unfortunate controversy which closely resembles the days of white and black segregation. The position taken by those who oppose marriage, is one of religious background which applies to almost all denominations of the Christian faith as well as with the Islamic faith. From a Christian perspective, the book of Leviticus offers a few admonishing against homosexuality, at least this is what has been interpreted from information that has made its way through a myriad of translation which. Additionally, many individuals who quote bible versus for the use of justifying their opinions and argument, are quick to single out one verse from a lengthy passage which as a whole, often takes on a whole new meaning than the message extrapolated from one single verse. One such admonishing. Leviticus 18:22 refers to homosexuality as being an abomination. A passage from Deuteronomy 14 admonishes the eating of shellfish because it “unclean”. If one is nit picking through scriptures, one can easily build a case in the defense or in favor of just about every activity or action which humans are capable of doing. The fact that much of the Bible is vague and immersed in allegory, it is unfair to extract one small verse in order to serve as a defense of one’s personal agenda. The argument in favor of banning guy marriage dictates that marriage is a holy covenant between two people and God. Often a reference is made to the garden of Eden where God made Adam and then Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s body. Because of this fable told in Genesis, many feel that God would have made two men or two women if he had embraced homosexuality. This is a weak argument at best as Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden in order to please God and then later produce offspring to inhabit the earth, “Theologically understood, marriage is not primarily for the control of lust or for procreation. It is a discipline whereby we give ourselves to another for the sake of growing in holiness -- for, more precisely, the sake of God (Rogers 2008). Incidentally, the evolution theory and the theory of adaptation, may argue rather that The earth’s gay and lesbian inhabitants prevent the world from being overpopulated as well as provide a home for adopted children. If anything, the homosexual community is integral to maintaining not only diversity but also a limiting of the world’s population. This is invaluable considering the fact that as it is, mankind is rapidly depleting the earth of its once plentiful resources. It is important to mention that not everyone who is submersed in a bible based for of religion disagrees with or opposed gay marriage, There are a variety of views of the purpose of marriage in the religious community; some think gender is irrelevant. Many religious organizations and people of faith have definitions that are probably different from yours”(iwgonline 2004). The current political climate suggests that no candidate can speak out in favor of gay marriage, because roughly half of the American people claim to be agaist gay marriage. This is such an astounding controversy, that even democratic liberalist candidates such as Barack Obama are declaring that they do not support gay marriage even though they are known for expressing an attitude of equality and tolerance for every one in America. There are a number of benefits which come with marriage that gay married couples are not afforded. An example of this is if an individual is deathly sick and their partner is not their spouse, that partner is unable to legally make decisions in the place of their ill partner. This is extremely worrisome to most gay couples planning their future together. there is no difference in the amount of affection, love or commitment that can be found within happily married srait couples compared to happily joined gay couples. This means that for gays, there is no legal way to make serious medically based decisions about the care and treatment of their partner. Sadly, this can mean that a person’s last wishes are not observed simply because their same sex partnership is not acknowledged as legally binding or legitimate. The real threat to the sanctity of marriage comes in the form of violence, betrayal and the taking of a marriage commitment as a light matter by numerous celebrities like Jennifer Lopez and Brittany Spears. Two individuals who love one another is the last thing that threatens the sanctity of marriage, “Marriage is under threat in America. One only need visit a center for battered wives, look at the level of infidelity or note the 50 percent divorce rate to see there are problems with one of society’s most important institutions. Letting two adults who love each other get married poses no threat. Legalizing gay marriage is more likely to strengthen the institution than anything else”(Downtown Express 2004). Unfortunately, the gay community has had to fight for the right to simply love another individual which is a fundamental right that should be afforded to all human beings. Those who have been permitted to enter into marriage nuptials with a same sex partner in California, will most likely be more prone to cherish and preserve the very union that they have fought so hard to achieve. This is completely different form the many strait couples who travel to Las Vegas for a weekend of fun and excitement complete with a Vegas marriage ceremony. It is preposterous to find this type of mockery of marriage acceptable when one c ould find the union of two individuals in love as a violation of what marriage should stand for. Marriage is simply an agreement between two people who wish to solidify their commitment to one another in a legal manner. There is nothing about this type of agreement that dictates that those two individuals must be of opposite sexes. Ultimately, the issue of gay marriage is a human rights issue. It is no different than the struggle encountered by those who were prohibited from voting due to their ethnicity or gender. It is reprehensible to think that any one group of people can forbid another group of people from partaking in their rights as humans simply because who they are is disagreeable to certain people. Being gay is no different from being of a certain ethnicity or of a certain gender. Forbidding homosexuals from being able to marry will not make anyone less gay or not gay at all. It will also not serve to make heterosexual marriage more stable or solidified. It will only prevent a portion of the population from being able to enter in to a legal and binding commitment with an individual whom they love. Again, with all of the hate, war, death and struggle going on globally, it is not justifiable to prohibit the act of love and commitment between any two individuals. Perhaps if the same bans and prohibitions were placed on the act of war, hate and violence; instead of being placed on individuals who love one another but happen to be of the same sex, the world might be a safer and more pleasant place for everyone to coexist, regardless of their sexual orientation. Works Cited: Belge, Kathy, 2008, “Pro-gay marriage: why gay marriage should be legal”, About.com, retrieved from website 8 August, 2008 from website at: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/lgmarriage.htm ----------------, Published 5 March, 2004, “Legalize gay marriage”, Downtown Express.com, , retrieved from website 6 August, 2008 at:http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_43/editorial.html -------------, “Religious support for equal marriage rights” 2005, , iwgonline.com, retrieved 8 August, 2008 from website at: http://www.iwgonline.org/marriage/ Kessinger, Taylor, 2007, “Pro gay rights: the common sense position”, The Wildcat, retrieved 8 August, 2008 from website at: http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/12/03/ Opinions/ProGay.Rights.The.CommonSense.Position-3127982.shtml Nguyen, Minh T., 1999, “Civil rights: history of gay rights”, retrieved 8 August, 2008 from website at: http://www.enderminh.com/minh/civilrights.aspx Rogers, Eugene, 2008, “An argument for gay marriage”, retrieved 8 August, 2008 from website at: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3069 Vallejo Times Herald, June 11, 2008, “Applications increase after pro-gay marriage ruling”, retrieved 8 August, 2008 from website at:http://www.enderminh.com/minh/civilrights.aspx Van Der Mere, Ben, 2008, “Proponents, opponents argue language on gay marriage ballot initiative”, politickerCA.com, retrieved 8 August, 2008 from website at: http://www.politickerca.com/benvandermeer/1710/proponents- opponents-argue-language-gay-marriage-ballot-initiative Read More