Social Conflict and Mediation Spring 2016 - Essay Example

Social Conflict and Mediation Spring 2016

Background

Since time immemorial, there has been an argument on the issue of sexual orientation among the human population. Sexual orientation takes many forms with the homosexuals being considered as deviants from the norms of the society both in the secular and the religious world. As such, there has been a conflict between the supporters and those against homosexuality with each side of the divide citing different reasons to back up their claims of the controversial issue. In the United States, there have been attempts by advocacy groups to champion for the acceptance of the gay and lesbian communities in the society. In the year 1950, Harry Hay and Chuck Rowland founded the Mattachine Society whose objective was to fight for the rights of the minorities in the society that include the homosexuals. The founders of the organization had the intention of championing for the acceptance of those considered to be sexual deviants in the society. In 1952, the Daughters of Bilitis was founded by Phillys Lyon and Del Marti to advocate expressly for the rights of the lesbians in America.

With the increasing interest in the issue surrounding homosexuality, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) gave a grant to Dr. Evelyn Hooker to mainly study the gay men so that she could come up with an explanation why they tend to be attracted to the fellow men. With the findings of the survey by the Dr. Evelyn, the American Psychology Association scrapped homosexuality as from the list of mental conditions giving hope to the supporters of the minorities a hope for a brighter future. In 1950, the civil society involved in the fight for the rights of the homosexual community made a step when they won a new legislation that inhibited racial discrimination. The first demonstration for the rights of the gay community took place in 1965 in Philadelphia and also the capital Washington DC. The demonstration was led by the advocacy veterans Barbara Gittings and Frank Kameny (Morris, 2016).

In subsequent years, especially in the 1970s, several liberation movements for the rights of the gay community came up. The primary objectives of the surge of the liberation movements were to ensure that the gay community was accepted in the society without the attacks from different sections of the society. As much as there was the increase in the number of gay rights liberators, there was equally those against the liberations of the homosexuals. Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women also came up during the same period as the lesbian groups also sought to champion for their course parallel to the gays. With the enhanced advocacy for the acceptance of the gay community, in 1972, America saw the ordination of the first gay minister. The United Church of Christ showed the world that the gay men can equally go about religious responsibilities as a result of the ordination of the priest. Several religious affiliations began to accept the gay community as a consequence of the increased liberation movements.

In the 1980s, the advent of the HIV/AID severely impacted on the gay community leading to new pacts with the lesbian counterparts to combat the epidemic that was threatening their survival, especially with the risk of contracting the virus as a result of sex. One of the organizations was the AID Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP). Due to the continued advocacy by several organizations over the years, a bill formalizing the civil unions between the homosexuals was passed in the year 2000 which is the famous Vermont Law. In the year 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to perform a gay marriage under the new dispensation guiding the gay marriages. Today, in the midst of continuing debate between the supporters and opponents of the gay marriages, several countries have laid down legal structures that allow the formalization of the unions between gay couples. Some of the countries include Netherlands, Spain, Canada and Belgium.

Statements of the Conflicting Sides

The conflict surrounding the same-sex marriages entails the states that believe in human rights on one side and the religious groups on the other side. The states that have legalized the same sex marriages base their arguments on facts that are seen by the Church and other religious groups as compromising the human virtues. In support of the gay marriages against the will of the religious groups, the states cite several factors that make the same-sex marriages legitimate. The basis of the legalization of the same-sex marriage is the equality, which nearly all states would want to be seen upholding. Just like the racial and other forms of social equality stipulated and protected by the law, the states argue that the gay individuals should be accorded the same treatment as other minorities in the country (Benokraitis, 2015).

The advent of the legalization of gay marriages is also based on the fact that unions give the gay couples a right to adoption and medical rights. The gay couples who may wish to adopt children may not be able to do so unless the law recognizes the marriage. Just like heterosexual marriages, the state is proponents of same-sex marriage believe that the gay and lesbian marriages are equally capable of effectively bringing up the adopted children. They exhibit all features of the heterosexual marriages except the sexual orientation. As such, the state argues that it is acceptable to allow the same-sex marriages so that they can exhibit generational lineage. Another possibility, which also happens in the regular marriages is the hiring of nannies to take care of the young ones in the family. In the heterosexual marriages especially in cases where the couples are concentrating on their careers, they rarely have the chance to interact and bond with the children. There is fear that the same-sex couples will not pay attention to the well-being of the children so that the children will not experience the accepted developmental process that is typical of the heterosexual marriages where the parents are available. To eliminate unfair nature if the society towards the gay marriages, the some state laid down the legal procedures allowing the same-sex marriages. As such, the gay community can freely marry among themselves and exhibit the feeling of belonging to family units.

As fellow human beings, the state and civil societies advocating for the rights of the gay community, they assert that the minority group has the right to express their feelings to whoever they like. As such, the gay community should not be condemned for expressing their feelings towards fellow men. The advocacy groups consider the prohibition of same-sex marriages as selfish acts that confine the expression of love among fellow human beings to be between male and female. There should be free from any legal repercussions emanating from the expressing the feeling of love towards other individuals so long as there is a mutual feeling (Mooney, 2015). The state and civil societies consider the legalization of the gay marriages as a significant move towards accomplishing stability in the society (Shih, 2010). The failure of the state to accept the existence of the gay relationships is a prerequisite to instabilities in marriages as the gay partner would always seek satisfaction from other gays. In such an instance, the family, which is the core of the society would undergo multiple faces of conflicts that automatically lead high rates of dissolved marriages.

The proponents of the same-sex marriages also argued that the legalization of the process would be instrumental in alleviating the psychological torture emanating from the discrimination of the minority group in the society. Before the legalization of the gay marriages, the individuals underwent serious mental stress with some ending up committing suicide (Russel et al., 2011). The driving force for such cases was as a result of the consideration by the society of the gay community as outcasts. The gays and lesbian individuals underwent condemnation from all quarters of the society with some families denouncing their relationships for those who made attempts to go public about their sexuality. The feeling of belonging nowhere as a result of being rejected by the families, the society, and the state prompted the victims to take inconsiderate measures to free themselves from the immense psychological stress. The legalization of the same-sex marriages is particularly instrumental in instilling a sense of belonging to the gay community. As much as there is still critiques about the move to legalize gay marriages in some states, there is a reprieve though to a small extent on the side of the homosexuals as they feel protected by the law from the aggression by different quarters of the society.

Contrary to the rationale fronted by the civil society and the state in support of the gay marriages, the religious group, especially Christians, have a different view of the same sex marriages. The position of the church is that the same-sex marriages should not be allowed in the society as it represents a moral decay and goes against the wishes of God, the Supreme Being who created the humankind. Human beings, according to the teachings of the Church should live in the way of the church. As believers in the ways of God, the opponents of the homosexuality and subsequently the same-sex marriages argue that the act is against the will of God. Christians believe that marriage is a creation of God and not any state of the world. As such, just like God initiated the marriage between Adam and Eve, who were the first couple on earth, people should not go against the will of God through the engaging in the homosexuality.

It is the expectation of the church that every believer should follow the teachings of the Bible and only marry individuals of the opposite sex. According to the Bible, on which the Christianity is based, man created humankind in his image. He only created male and female. Christians interpret the act of God as a pointer towards the marriage between male and female only (Thatcher & Wiley Online Library, 2011). Any other form of marriage that does not involve male and female is considered as not Godly as it cannot lead to procreation which is the essence of the wedding. In line with the church, legalization of the same-sex marriage should never be allowed as it compromises on the wishes of God that stipulate that man and woman shall unite and procreate.

The opponents of homosexuality argue that the act is against the natural law. They believe that only good things that lead to positive outcomes should be pursued. Otherwise, it is irrational to promote some acts in the society that will never yield any positivity, especially on humanity. Morality dictates that human beings only engage in acts that promote the well-being of the society. Homosexuality represents a violation of the natural laws thereby compromising the morality and thus should not be allowed to extend past the imagination. Another argument by the opponents of sexuality claims that the act denies a child either of the parents. A child adopted and raised by homosexual parents does not experience the care of parents of both sexes. Gay parents will not treat the children as an actual parent would as a result of lack of any blood relationship. The child may feel detached from the foster parents (Merriman, 2009).

The marriage between male and females leads to benefits to the society. The key is the creation of a society where there are high regards for morality. A marriage that consummates into the birth of a child from the union of two affectionate male and female is the pillar of the society. The marriage provides a conducive atmosphere for the upbringing of equally morally upright children who are unlikely to go against the norms of the society. According to the opponents allowing homosexuality and by extension, such marriages only serves to gratify two individuals who are determined to go against nature as well as the norms of a morally sound society. The children brought in the setting of homosexual marriage is likely to deviate further from the accepted practices of the society, that according to those who are determined not to see the initiation of the gay marriages by the state.

Mediation Process

Considering various factors surrounding the issue is rational. With a careful analysis of the proposals of each side, it will be possible to understand how the church and the state would wish to see the issue of homosexuality come to an end. One side, there is the state and human rights advocacy groups that believe that in the course of ensuring equality of all human beings, the rights and freedoms must be safeguarded. As such, they want to see the consummation of their wishes with the enaction of laws in all the state that allow the unions between members of the same sex, whether gay or lesbians. On the other side, there is the Christian community that follows the teaching of the Bible in their undertakings. Because the first people created by God on earth were male and female who were ordered to procreate and fill the earth, Christians and the opponents of homosexuality believe that nature should apply in the union between two individuals during the marriage. Also, they consider the homosexuality as an act of moral decay in the society with the unions not being viable for generational progression. As the mediator, understanding the position of either of the parties is instrumental for my ability to lead the negotiation process that may culminate in a neutral position for the conflicting sides (Murray, 2011). From my assessments based on the statements by the opponents and proponents of the homosexuality and legalization of the same-sex marriages, I have come to the conclusion that the two parties have based their positions on the morality of the society and the protection of human rights.

In the controversy surrounding the same sex marriage leading to a conflict between the state and the Christian Community, it is necessary to find a common ground that is acceptable to both parties. The solution should allow the state and the Church to maintain their positions on the issue of homosexuality without any confrontation. As such, the church would continue its teachings on the matter of homosexuality while the state also maintains the legal structures allowing the homosexuality and the same sex marriages. As a result of the fact that most relationships culminate in marriage, the two institutions should have different perspectives on the issue of marriage because it is the factor that contributes to the unending dispute between the proponents and the opponents of homosexuality. It is also worth noting a mutually acceptable standard on the issue of homosexuality would enable citizens to join either side of the divide without compromise on their stands on their stand on homosexuality.

Alternatives Solutions to the Conflict

There are three best alternatives to the negotiated agreements between the opponents and the proponents of homosexuality. The first alternative would be for the state to cease recognizing the marriages in the church. Because the church is totally against the same sex marriages and is unlikely to alter its position based on the strong teachings of the Bible. Eliminating the recognition of the Church would abolish the debate on the marriages between individuals of the same sex. For Christians, they would, therefore, have their marriages initiated in the church based on the practices of the church. As such, the couples married in the church would not be civilly married I line with the requirements of the state law. Depending on the belief and the need for couples who have the intention of officiating their marriage, they would have to choose between the Church and the state.

The second option that would see an end to the conflict between the civic society and the church would be for the churches to cease bestowing civil rights. There should be a distinction between the church and the society. The leaders in the church should not engage in matters relating to the human rights as it would lead to a compromise on their position on the homosexuality. Church would want equality among peoples. Equality means that the freedom and rights of the people are protected. As a component of the human rights, people would, therefore, be allowed to engage in sexual acts with members of the same sex. In case the church decide to engage in civil issues, it will have to compromise on its teachings about morality which same sex marriages goes compromises. The distinction between the state and the church on matters relating to marriage and civil unions sets the state for ceasing of the conflict. For spouses who want civil marriage, they should go straight to the court so as to avoiding being entangled by the moral issues raised by the Church. However, it is worth noting that either way a couple chooses to go, the marriage is recognized by the law except that the institutions operate independently. The third best alternative for the couples who would wish to officiate their marriages but not want the entanglement by the state requirements is to marry in the church but remain single in the eyes of the state. As such, the state would have no jurisdiction in the personal lives of the married couples. There would be no discussion on the human rights issues for those who decide to go the church way while those who select the civil marriage would not face any condemnation over their morality from the church should they be of the same sex.

End of the Mediation

The recommended solutions to the conflicts are viable options that would ascertain the peaceful coexistence of the state and the church. The citizens would have the option of selecting which side fits their desires concerning their sexual orientations. As the mediator of the conflict the state and the church, I would propose that the church and the state exist independent of each other. In either of the institutions, there should be no overlapping of their mandates. The members of the society should be given the discretion of choosing which side they should join. Each of the institutions would also maintain their positions that would be made clear to the members of the society. In the course of negotiating a solution between the opponents and the proponents of the homosexuality and same-sex marriages, there is no case of potential power imbalance.